World of Ham Radio 1994 January/AMSOFT_1994.iso/packet/docs/pd198907.doc

Text File | 1993-12-31 | 171.7 KB | 4,026 lines

1-Jul-89 05:23:22-MDT,16592;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat,  1 Jul 89 05:00:48 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #168
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Sat,  1 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
  TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet) (5 msgs)
                   Traffic
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 89 16:29:00 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

>Bdale: This [TheNet] is generally recognized as an outright

Sorry Phil, but I didn't say this... must have gotten gnarled somewhere...

I can find no fault with your statements, though...

Bdale

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 89 23:46:21 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

>Well, I'm diametrically opposed to the position taken by TAPR and Phil.
>I think TAPR has lost a lot of credibility in this move.

John, for someone who normally strikes me as being extremely well informed, and
bearing opinions that are quite objective, your reaction mystifies me...  the
only reason I can see for it is the awesome amount of misinformation floating
around on the packet nets.

>Now back to the issue of TAPR and Nord><Link.  I find it fascinating that
>people will piously pontificate against the reverse engineering job done
>by Nord><Link while they themselves are using a PC clone.

It's possible to go around in circles for years about this one.  The only
comment I'll make is that there's a distinct difference between "reverse
engineering" as defined by legal precedent, and "decompilation".  A lot of
early "PC clones" that didn't adhere to the reverse engineering rules quickly
dropped out of sight due to legal innuendo/action by IBM... what's left are,
for the most part, legal examples of reverse engineering.

Having looked at the NET/ROM sources next to Nord><Link sources briefly at
the TAPR meeting in February, I believe that Nord><Link either had access to
Ron's sources (he claims not), or that they decompiled and tweaked.  Even given
a protocol definition, a compiler, and a target system... the probability of
independent creation of two pieces of code with the similarities displayed is
astronomically small.

>*   The source published by Nord><link is C source, not assembler which
>    would be expected from a decompillation effort.  If anyone has an
>    algorithm for decompiling an optimized binary back to C source, I'd like
>    to know about it.

Given a specific C compiler, and a specific target, this isn't as hard as you
make it out to be.  I've written hacks to do this often for small pieces of
code (ever hear of binary Unix distributions?  seems oxymoronic to me... :-)
And, after all, compared to what I usually work on, 32k of ROM is nothing...

If Hans and company had access to Ron's sources at some point, this would all
make more sense, but I'm not going to dismiss decompilation out of hand.  I
could do it myself if I felt so inclined... but I'd rather work on better
bits!  :-)

>And now TAPR unilaterally decides to discontinue distribution of NORD><LINK?
>I am deeply disappointed.

TAPR never distributed any NORD><LINK software, so there was nothing to
discontinue.  The *only* interaction between the two groups at all, despite
lots of junk that's flowed across the packet networks to the contrary, was
NORD><LINK's participation as a late member of the NNC beta-group.  After a
presentation by Ron at the TAPR board meeting in February, TAPR sent a letter
to Germany asking for a specific response to the allegations made in IGY's
comparison.  We received a response that did little to answer the ultimate
question of how TheNET was created.  As a result, TAPR's board decided the
most prudent course of action would be to request that the NNC prototype be
returned, and that's that.  We'd already canned the NNC project a year and
a half ago, so it just shouldn't be a big issue.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the misinformation.  Regardless, as TAPR
President Andy Freeborn N0CCZ so eloquently put it, "I sure hope we can get
back to work now".  TAPR is, after all, primarily an R&D organization...

73 - Bdale, N3EUA, TAPR board member

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 89 20:14:08 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

>As an outside observer, I see TAPR giving very unfair preference to Rakes
>and company based on personal relationships between Rakes and some of the
>board members.

Quite the contrary.  There isn't much love lost between Ron and some members
of the board.  As a whole, the board is quite impartial about this...

>We have no indication that
>the code he evaluated was even production code and not "ringer" code
>prepared for the purpose of discrediting Nord><Link.

This has been discussed at length on CIS.  There have now been several
independent comparisons of Nord><Link and S2000 sources, all with about the
same conclusions.  The TAPR board was afforded the opportunity for examination
of the code at our board meeting in Tucson in February.  I glanced at the bits,
and was startled by the similarity of the one piece I studied, but admit the
remainder of my remarks are based on observations made by others whose
opinions I respect.

>Since TAPR (and now we) are sitting in judgement, it is our obligation to
>treat both sides fairly.

TAPR is *not* sitting in judgement.  The fact of the matter is that we were
facing the choices of 1) leaving well enough alone and getting nuked by a
subset of hams for "supporting N/L", or 2) recalling the NNC (a project we had
cancelled anyway) and getting nuked by a subset of hams for "siding with Ron".
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>I'd expect
>Rakes to make his source available for public scrutiny especially since
>he claims the Nord><Link code is identical.  Then I'd expect a verification
>to be made that the source released actually builds a binary identical
>to an independently acquired NET/ROM.

He has, and it has been done.  End of argument on this point?

>My last concern is that TAPR has delivered yet another blow to the NNC.
>Nord><Link had the most potential of making the NNC practical and useful.
>Considering the money and time invested in the device, I'd expect
>support to be given to any effort.

There's such a thing as knowing when to cut your losses.  TAPR decided at the
board meeting a year and a half ago now that the NNC project was dead, and it
was time to move on to bigger and better things.  The microsat project, the DSP
modem project, the 9600 baud radio modem project, etc., etc...  That's why I
commented in my last message in this string that it's all a pretty moot point.
The NORD><LINK guys would have found a hardware-less market for any code
written for the NNC anyway, since TAPR didn't intend to ever build any...

73 - Bdale, N3EUA

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 00:42:43 GMT
From: elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!forsight!jato![e-mail]  (Harris Boldt Edelman)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

This may be a hopelessly naive question, but anyway: is the Software2000
that brings us NET/ROM the same Software2000 that brought us TurboDOS?

-Harris  KB6OWB

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 22:58:43 GMT
From: emory!stiatl![e-mail]  (John DeArmond)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bdale Garbee) writes:
>>Well, I'm diametrically opposed to the position taken by TAPR and Phil.
>>I think TAPR has lost a lot of credibility in this move.
>
>John, for someone who normally strikes me as being extremely well informed, and
>bearing opinions that are quite objective, your reaction mystifies me...  the

Fair question.  Let me expand on this a bit.  I have tried to filter the BS
from the facts in this discussion.  Admitedly the noise-to-signal ratio
has been high on most forums.  There are several things in this world that
hit my "go button".  Among them, exploitation of the public trust and good
will, dishonesty, allowing hobby disputes to leak over into the professional
world and copy protection.

NET/ROM / Software 2000/ Raikes' behavior has touched on just about all of
these.  When NET/ROM first came out in beta form as no-cost software,
I thought it was great.  Here was a transport protocol that fit into the
hardware and operating environment most hams are familiar with.  After
all, there are many more node administrators who are NOT technical whizes
than those who are.  I saw some limitations but none that could not
be rounded out.  I have a bias against any ham-oriented software (ham or
commercial) that does not include source.  I still believe in ham radio's
charter if education.  I can think of no better way to educate a ham
about an application than to have him study the specification AND
an implementation.  So I had reservations about the object-only distribution
and expressed an opinion to that effect.

Then we found out that the intent was to get hams to beta test and debug
the code for free and then turn it into a commercial product.  That is
the exploitation part.  Here he is using a publicly developed protocol,
publicly refined hardware and publicly developed operating practices to
base a rather high priced product on.  A product whose details and design
were "proprietary" - remember that he only released the protocol specifications
very much later.  Then he obtains free beta testing and bug reporting by
seeding the community with free beta copies and not disclosure that followup
releases would be commercial.  To cap things off, we then find that he is also
selling a pure commercial (non-ham) version into the RCC market.

I realize that nothing here is illegal or even a particular exception to
common practice in the software industry.  I consider it unethical, however,
and unbecomming to ham radio - I have always, after all, considered hams to
be a cut above the general population.

Then the kicker comes.  He's encrypting callsigns into the ROMs and worse,
charging almost full price for call sign changes.  Copy protection.  Copy
protection is a particularly insidious crime in my book.  Its very nature
says that any user is a priori a criminal against which guardian measures
must be used.  So he's misappropriated the good will of the ham community
and he's rewarded it by calling us all thieves and ripping us off.

Some would say "you don't like it, don't buy it".  Good advice but not
particularly applicable here.  Those people who had significant investment
in equipment at switch sites could not simply dump that investment.
Remember that at that time there was nothing to replace it.  Of course
network architecture could have been altered to work around it but why
should we pay the price for his greed?

In Georgia, sufficient anger arose that GRAPES took an official position
against NET/ROM.  We would not sponsor a NET/ROM site nor interconnect with
one.  And we encouraged affiliated sysops to refuse connections routed
through NET/ROM.  I was angry enough to investigate his copy protection
scheme and figured out how to change the callsign (as did several others)
and made the information public.  No longer would he rip off people for
call-sign chages.

So then along comes Nord><Link.  A bunch of German hams publish a public
domain clone of net/rom.  Complete with source... and support tools.
and some enhancements.  Neet stuff.  So what does Raikes do?   He goes
totally and completely bonkers.  I have rarely in my life see such caustic,
such venomous, such hateful words as were written by Raikes.  Rather than
pressing an infringement case, he resorted to slander and character
assasination in the public forum - a forum the germans could ill compete in.
Factors such as the language barrier and access to american networks worked
against the germans.  Besides as we all know, it is very hard to prove a
negative.

And to top that off, he tries to ruin anyone who used Nord><Link.  Witness
the JPL and several documented instances where he contacted supervisors or
company officials of those using Nord><Link.  This is way beyond any
stretch of the ethical imagination.  To affect someone's career over a
ham radio dispute is just plain stupid.  I can't imagine how anybody could
have sided with him at this point regardless of their prior opinions.

And then he releases an "upgrade" with an intentional protocol incompatibility
designed to obsolete the entire installed base of net/rom protocol sites.
By then even the most ardent net/rom supporters had had enouth.  By then
the transition to Nord><Link in this area was complete.

So having failed to win his case in the public forum and knowing he
did not have a legal chance, he goes to the TAPR board.  He presents
his "independent" consultant's report.  Then TAPR in effect demanded
Nord><Link prove a negative.  I'm not sure just what response would
have been "right" at this point.

The best thing TAPR could have done was stay neutral.  They did not and
instead took sides.  That is the basis of my criticism.  Especially since
this action effectively snuffed out any hope of there being an application
of the NNC.  (No need to hash that one over again).

It really does not matter to me whether the nord><Link group decompiled
a net/rom or whether they twiddled original code til the objects looked
like net/rom or whether an incredible coincidence took place.  As long
as they did not steal source or design documents from Raikes, I have
no problem.  As I've stated before, I consider reverse engineering to
be a viable enterprise especially when the clone is "constrained by
the architecture" to use the judge's words in the Intel-NEC suit.

I maintain that if there had been a shred of legal evidence to support
his claim, Raikes should have been in court.  Contrary to popular
opinion, and injuction against copying or distribution is very
inexpensive to obtain especially when no monitary bond is involved.
I know, I've done it before.  He'd have spent maybe 5-600 bux on fees.
Now an injuction of this sort would have been impossible to enforce but
it would have delivered a powerful message to the community.  If I had
seen a notice of injunctive relief, I'd have certainly given the matter
a reconsideration.  I'd probably not have used either set.

>>And now TAPR unilaterally decides to discontinue distribution of NORD><LINK?
>>I am deeply disappointed.
>
>TAPR never distributed any NORD><LINK software, so there was nothing to
>discontinue.

My comment here was based on an announcement I saw go across the BBS net
at one point that the sources were available from TAPR.  I stand corrected.


>I hope this helps to clear up some of the misinformation.  Regardless, as TAPR
>President Andy Freeborn N0CCZ so eloquently put it, "I sure hope we can get
>back to work now".  TAPR is, after all, primarily an R&D organization...

Well I hope so too, although this discussion must take place after TAPR
injected themselves into the political arena.  BTW, we gonna ever see
some TNC-2 sources????? :-)
>
>73 - Bdale, N3EUA, TAPR board member

John,
Just a Plain Old Ham these days.


--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 89 21:41:27 GMT
From: swituc![e-mail]  (Pat Berry)
Subject: Traffic

I am looking for an HF packet BBS that supports NTS third party
traffic.  Any help?  Are all the NTS BBSs on amtor?
73 de kn7b
uunet!arizona!swituc!pmb

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #168
*****************************************
 4-Jul-89 10:08:23-MDT,9309;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue,  4 Jul 89 10:00:55 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #169
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Tue,  4 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
             New DSP mailing list
           Theft of code (Was: TheNet ...) (2 msgs)
       TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 09:26:56 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!orca![e-mail]  (Michael T. Horne)
Subject: New DSP mailing list

A new mailing list aimed primarily at the application of Digital Signal
Processing technology and algorithms to amateur (and other) communications
has been recently started.  If you are interested in DSP-related topics,
or feel you may be able to contribute to discussions held on this new DSP
mailing list, send your name, callsign (if any), and a valid E-mail address
to:

    [e-mail], or
    [e-mail], or
    ...{backbone}!uunet!ka7axd.wv.tek.com!dsp-group-request

To post messages to the group, send them to:

    [e-mail]

or appropriate permutation as shown above.  If a sufficiently large number
of people in your area are interested in subscribing, I would suggest that
you setup a redistribution point (see your system administrator if you need
more information).

If you have any questions or comments about the dsp-group, please send them
directly to me at the email address below.  Enjoy!

Mike
[e-mail]
H:[phone]

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 89 18:01:49 GMT
From: bbn.com![e-mail]  (Bob Clements)
Subject: Theft of code (Was: TheNet ...)

Well, this seems to me to be the nub of the issue:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
>It really does not matter to me whether the nord><Link group decompiled
>a net/rom or whether they twiddled original code til the objects looked
>like net/rom or whether an incredible coincidence took place.  As long
>as they did not steal source or design documents from Raikes, I have
>no problem.

If you really believe that, John, then what, if anything, do you
think the copyright laws mean?  Can I take your professional work
output and copy it freely?  I don't know whether your product is
hardware or software or both.  Mine is both.  I don't believe
that anyone can just copy it, decompile it and give it away.
Whether it's yours, mine or WA8DED's.  And yes, I've manually
decompiled bigger pieces of code than NET/ROM, but I haven't
given the results away.  I HAVE given away some of my code, to
the KA9Q effort for example, but that was my choice, not some
thief's.

Or is it just because you don't like WA8DED's behavior that it's OK
to steal his property?  (I won't try to defend what he did AFTER
it was stolen -- JPL, et al. -- but that's irrelevant to the theft
of his code.)  What if someone didn't like your behavior, or mine?

> As I've stated before, I consider reverse engineering to
>be a viable enterprise especially when the clone is "constrained by
>the architecture" to use the judge's words in the Intel-NEC suit.

Z80-SIO routines are rather constrained.  Not the NET/ROM protocol
implementation.

>John De Armond, WD4OQC
>Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA
>...!gatech!stiatl!john

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 89 17:31:53 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Frank)
Subject: Theft of code (Was: TheNet ...)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Clements) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
>> As I've stated before, I consider reverse engineering to
>>be a viable enterprise especially when the clone is "constrained by
>>the architecture" to use the judge's words in the Intel-NEC suit.
>
>Z80-SIO routines are rather constrained.  Not the NET/ROM protocol
>implementation.

   On this point I think I can speak with some authority.  I have not
seen any of WA8DED's code, so I can't judge similarities between NET/ROM
and TheNET.  However, I am quite familiar with the transport protocol
implementation in TheNET, and I wrote both the network and transport
protocols for the NET/ROM support in the KA9Q NET package.  Based on
this experience I would like to make the following points:

    1) The transport implementation in TheNET is very distinctive.
       The ways in which it allocates and uses buffers, sequences
       groups of packets into windows, and deals with timers are, when
       combined in an implementation, something I would certainly
       consider an "original work".  We are not talking look-and-feel
       here.  If it can be credibly and independently verified that
       the algorithms and data structures used in NET/ROM are the
       same or substantially similar, then I have no trouble with
       the notion that copyright has been violated.

    2) Protocols are not microprocessors.  There are many, many ways
       to implement a protocol; in fact given a spec (such as the
       one for TCP) there are large areas where the implementor has
       considerable scope for creativity.  Anyone who has access to
       my NET/ROM code and Nord><Link's should find virtually no
       similarity between them.  The basic transport frame type
       switching logic is different, as is the way I handle timers,
       as is the way I handle the connection establishment and shutdown
       phases.  As I've mentioned before, the basic communications
       portion of the implementation is modeled after the sliding
       windows protocol in Tanenbaum's 'Computer Networks'.  There
       are some basic constraints on the data model for the routing
       table that make aspects of the network implementation familiar,
       but these are precisely the kinds of things that are not
       easily claimed as an "original work".  I can't accept the
       comparison between this and the NEC case.

    3) NET/ROM is really a dumb product, and you have to be pretty
       dumb to want to copy it.  The idea of a radio transport
       protocol with fixed frame timeout intervals is ludicrous
       (that's something I fixed in my implementation, *without*
       loss of compatibility with the protocol, I should point
       out), and the Bellman-Ford routing algorithm in the network
       layer is almost totally useless in topologies that do not
       resemble a straight line.  The Nord><Link people didn't do
       anything except delay the introduction of quality network
       services into the ham radio community.  If Software 2000
       can sell this junk to commercial customers, more power to
       them.  We as hams should be able to do better than to plug
       `n play some knock-off of a bad product.  While I think
       Raikes showed a callous disregard for the effects his actions
       would have on the wider ham community, I also think that the
       people who used TheNET in the face of his concerns have to
       share the blame for what ultimately happened.


   -- Dan Frank, W9NK

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 89 02:00:40 GMT
From: w3vh![e-mail]  (Rolfe Tessem)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
<much anti-Software 2000 stuff deleted>

>Here he is using a publicly developed protocol,
            ^^^^^^^^
>publicly refined hardware and publicly developed operating practices to
>base a rather high priced product on.

At the risk of prolonging this flamefest, I can't help but wonder
what your definition of "public" is in this context.  I've never heard
anyone question whether the NET/ROM protocols themselves were originally
developed by Software 2000.

>Then he obtains free beta testing and bug reporting by
>seeding the community with free beta copies and not disclosure that followup
>releases would be commercial.  To cap things off, we then find that he is also
>selling a pure commercial (non-ham) version into the RCC market.

Wow! Lets string him up by the thumbs!
Am I missing something here, or did it suddenly become a crime to make money
in this country?  You'd probably be *really* upset to discover that ICOM is
also selling radios into the aviation and marine markets.

>I realize that nothing here is illegal or even a particular exception to
>common practice in the software industry.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

--
UUCP:         uunet!w3vh!rolfe                  | Rolfe Tessem
INTERNET:     [e-mail]                 | P.O. Box 793
AMPRNET:      [e-mail] [44.44.0.2]| Great Barrington, MA 01230
PACKET RADIO: w3vh@wa2pvv                       | [phone]

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #169
*****************************************
 5-Jul-89 20:45:28-MDT,8626;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed,  5 Jul 89 19:09:29 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #170
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Wed,  5 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
               KISS Info Wanted
  TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet) (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 11:44:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!praxis!hilbert![e-mail]  (Michael Chace)
Subject: KISS Info Wanted

Hello All,

I need some infomation on the KISS mode for the Pac-comm TINY 2 TNC.
If anyone has this on file could they (e)mail it to me, unfortunately
we have no Internet connections so anonymous FTP etc is out of the
question.

May I also repeat my previous request for information regarding West
German Mailbox network.

Thanks & 73,

Mike  -  G6DHU
****



___________________________________________________________________________.
|                                                | Michael Chace            |
| JANET  :  [e-mail]                   | PraXis Electronic Design |
|                                                | 20 Manvers Street        |

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 89 18:36:35 GMT
From: swituc![e-mail]  (Pat Berry)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
> I realize that nothing here is illegal or even a particular exception to
> common practice in the software industry.
Then what is your problem?
>
> ......  Copy
> protection is a particularly insidious crime in my book.  Its very nature
> says that any user is a priori a criminal against which guardian measures
> must be used.  So he's misappropriated the good will of the ham community
> and he's rewarded it by calling us all thieves and ripping us off.
Are you kidding us? Or are you that naive? Or are you one of the lowlifes
that steals software?
> ........  I was angry enough to investigate his copy protection
> scheme and figured out how to change the callsign (as did several others)
> and made the information public.  No longer would he rip off people for
> call-sign chages.
>
Oh... disregard my last question.
> John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
> Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
I bet you would be the first to raise a fuss if someone stole YOUR product.
I can't figure out if you are a) naive, b) a hypocrite, c) playing devil's
advocate, or d) a lunatic.
I have to go now, I want to appologize to all my neighbors for calling
them burglars... you see, I put in this alarm system and have locks on
my doors...

Pat Berry KN7B
uunet!arizona!swituc!pmb
7030Khz

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 14:41:53 GMT
From: dcatla![e-mail]  (Jack S. Brindle)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:
>
>In Georgia, sufficient anger arose that GRAPES took an official position
>against NET/ROM.  We would not sponsor a NET/ROM site nor interconnect with
>one.  And we encouraged affiliated sysops to refuse connections routed
>through NET/ROM.  I was angry enough to investigate his copy protection
>scheme and figured out how to change the callsign (as did several others)
>and made the information public.  No longer would he rip off people for
>call-sign chages.
>

As a member of the Grapes board of directors I feel that an explanation/
correction must be made to John's comment here. GRAPES did indeed take
a stand on networking. We decided not to implement NET/ROM in our nodes,
but rather to run Phil's NET code. At the time we were planning and
beginning to test our 56K system, and quickly realized that KA9Q code
was the only AVAILABLE system that would run at 56K. NET/ROM, KA Nodes
and the rest had no chance. Thus, our choice was made out of necessity.
NET/ROM is used in the states that surround us. They sometimes interconnect
through our backbone to transfer packets. It works quite nicely. (Thanks,
Phil).

I have no doubt that John remembers the discussion the way he describes it.
There are many folks around here that took major exception to Ron's
actions. There were many discussions of that type carried on in the time
frame the decision was made. But, the fact of the matter is that NET/ROM
could not handle our needs. John, by the way, is not an idiot, as one
message would suggest. He feels quite strongly about several issues, one
being ham software and sources. He is, as this discussion has shown,
quite vocal about it. Even though he and I often disagree, I still
listen - he makes really good points every so often.

I will not pass judgement on the NET/ROM issue except to say two things.
Ron was invited to the ARRL National convention when it was held here in
Atlanta. He declined, but was quite ably represented by Tom King (whom
we wished lived here - he's pretty good at technical issues!). The second
thing is that NET/ROM is not too bad a transport system (but not a comm
system) for someone who had never designed communications systems before.
(Ron, himself, told me this in a phone conversation several years ago).

By the way, netters might be interested in the server configuration I
am running now (Patty take note). I have upgraded a Mac 128K board to
512K, placed it in a box with a power supply. The serial port is connected
to a 56K modem (sure is nice to transfer things FAST), while the other
port (known as printer) is connected to my local AppleTalk network. There
is no monitor or keyboard connected to the server. Instead I run a
program called Timbuktu, which allows me to remotely control the server
over AppleTalk. I was running the 33a version of Mac KA9Q/Net code, but
found problems with system hangs when SMTP transfers were going on. I now
have reverted to version 30.1. This works nicely, and I receive most of
my mail this way (route is gatech!kd4nc!wa4fib). The only other problem
is the TNC56 hangs periodically, but I reset it once a day to temporarily
fix this. By the way, the problem with the Mac talking directly to the
56K modem is the fact that only one clock input is available. I plan to
mux that pin based on RTS output. Oh yes - The Mac128/512 has no rts
output, so I turn on/off the RS422 port to simulate it.
73, Jack B. WA4FIB

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 15:54:16 GMT
From: shelby!polya![e-mail]  (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Berry) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John DeArmond) writes:

-> ......  Copy
-> protection is a particularly insidious crime in my book...
>Are you kidding us? Or are you that naive? Or are you one of the lowlifes
>that steals software?
-> ........  I was angry enough to investigate his copy protection
-> scheme and figured out how to change the callsign (as did several others)
-> and made the information public.  No longer would he rip off people for
-> call-sign chages.
>Oh... disregard my last question.

If someone sells a product that is deliberately crippled in some way, I have
NO problem with improving/enhancing/fixing it.  The product WAS paid for,
after all.  The concept of 'pig in a poke - and you get no promise that it
does what you want' seems to be particularly a software sales issue.  When I
got a Unix system with non-working utilities did the distributor care? No.
Did the manufacturer care? No, there was no claim that it worked in the
license agreement.  Did AT&T care? No, they got their license fee.  Was it
"legal" to reverse engineer (i.e. decompile) and fix the thing? No.

Tough.  If someone wants to sue me for making a purchased product work
correctly.. let them try.  In my opinion, copy protection and such things
as Call Sign encryption fall into this category.  If I paid for the thing, I
get to "fix" it if it breaks.  [I am not advocating stealing software].

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #170
*****************************************
 6-Jul-89 10:27:01-MDT,14903;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu,  6 Jul 89 10:00:19 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #171
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Thu,  6 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
               FCC Appointments
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
            TheNet//NET/ROM (We the Jury)
              TheNet controversy
       TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 02:16:27 GMT
From: pilchuck!ssc![e-mail]  (tad)
Subject: FCC Appointments


Please distribute the following bulletin via packet.  I am new to posting

on the net, so please remove any extra CR/LF if this comes out

double-spaced.  Be sure to preserve the BID$.







SB ALL @ ALLUSA $KT7HFC01

Sharree Marshall's FCC Appointment



7/5/89

Sharree Marshall's FCC Appointment

Bulletin ID: KT7HFC01



Several bulletins regarding Sharree Marshall's appointment to the FCC have

been going around in the past few days, and I wanted to clear up some

mis-information in these messages.



First, Sharree Marshall's name has been withdrawn by President Bush as a

nominee for the Chairman's position on the FCC.  She is still one of his

choices for the three vacant commissioner positions.  The new nominee is

Al Sykes, head of the NTIA.  Her name was probably withdrawn for political

reasons relating to her work with former chairman Dennis Patrick, whom the

Senate Communications Subcommittee did not like, and also because she

assisted the White House in the failed nomination of John Tower for Defense

Secretary.



Second, Ms. Marshall is NOT an employee of UPS, as a recent bulletin and

sample "letter to Congress" circulated via packet stated.  She is an

employee of a law firm specializing in telecommunications law, and UPS is

one of the firm's many clients.



Third, Congress is not the place to address your input on this matter.  The

FCC is governed by the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce,

Science, and Transportation Committee.  Here are the senators who are

members of the subcommittee needing your input on choosing FCC

commissioners:



Inouye        Hawaii            (Chairman, Communications Subcommittee)

Hollings      South Carolina    (Chairman, Commerce, Sc. & Trans. Comm.

Ford          Kentucky

Gore          Tennessee

Exon          Nebraska

Kerry         Maine

Bentsen       Texas

Breaux        Louisiana

McCain        Arizona

Stevens       Alaska

Pressler      South Dakota

Packwood      Oregon

Gorton        Washington

Burns         Montana



Address each piece of mail to an individual senator at:



(Senator's Name)

 U.S. Senate

 Washington, DC  20510



Do not try to use their individual office number.  Right now a lot of them

are changing offices, and the address above is best.



Keep your letter to the point, leave out any long harangues, and use a

spelling checker if you have one.  Don't accuse Ms. Marshall of doing

anything wrong UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE.  Wild allegations do

not help our cause.  A suggestion that she may not possess the objectivity

to regulate ham frequencies in the public interest may be sufficient.



I will forward more information as I get it.  Hams in the states served by

the above individual senators can have an especially strong impact.



The subcommittee staffer I spoke with today said that they will try to

have the hearings underway before the end of July.  If they miss that

date, then it will be after the recess and in the fall.



Fire up those word processors, but remember that a well thought out

letter from an individual has a real impact.  If a senator gets a bunch

of identical form letters, it is a negative for us.



Good luck!



73,

Tad Cook

KT7H @ WS7M

MCI Mail: 3288544



/EX

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 89 21:00:48 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!swbatl![e-mail]  (5415)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

I am a host-based UNIX user in the St. Louis MO area.  I know nothing
about packet radio.  An old friend who lives in the Dallas, TX area
recently gave me some info about his packet radio ID/address (?)
and said he thought we might be able to "gateway" somehow for
electronic mail.  He is a packet radio enthusiast with an ID on a
packet BBS, but knows nothing about the UNIX side of things.

I would appreciate it if anyone can tell me how to get from INET
or UUCP to packet radio BBS nodes and back.  This has probably
been covered on this newsgroup and is boring to trivial, so please
just reply to me via e-mail.

Thanks in advance!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| J. Camron "Cam" Spillman - Southwestern Bell Telephone | [e-mail] |
|     GHQ Finance Mechanization, St. Louis, Missouri     |  uunet!swbatl!cam  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 21:12:24 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TheNet//NET/ROM (We the Jury)

I'd like to toss this out to all the readers of TheNet // NET/ROM
discussion...

Everything that you know, you know by hearsay, unless you are one of
the privileged few and even those people are subject to review.

In a real court of law it would be inadmissible. There are reasons
that we have courts and judges vice convictions by mailed ballots after
reading newspaper and magazine accounts. Would YOU like to be judged
like this?

You and I are entitled to our opinions. However you nor I are entitled
to tell the other person he is right or wrong based on hearsay.

If you tried to coerce me into using NET/ROM  (or TheNet)  based on
hearsay I'd tell you to take a flying leap and I'd tell the ARRL, 73
magazine or my next door neighbor the same thing.

The ONLY way to settle this is in a court of law.... period. To say
R. Raikes shouldn't have to use our courts because he didn't make
enough profit is one for the books!

If I think that you stole my lawnmower I will call the police, not your
employer. I will let the judge decide, not the people who live on my
street. And before I accuse you, I will be darn sure that I know what
I'm doing, because anything less would be libelous and I would be held
accountable for it.

The present discussion on this issue violates ALL of the above premises
and as such how can I take action based on anything less than a court
decision? To do so would be in contradiction to all that I believe.

Do not stand in judgment of me, Nord><Link, or R. Raikes unless you have
personal experience somewhere along the line. Failing that, trust the courts
since that is what they are there for. If there happens to be an expert
programmer with access to all source code and also a Copyright lawyer on
this net, speak now. Even then I forgot to mention QUALIFIED UNBIASED JUDGE!
You see a court of law puts all these things together at once, this net
does not.

The question of theft or Copyright infringement will NEVER be settled out of
court... NEVER!

If we as hams are going to stand in judgment of other hams, let's start
by cleaning up the vulgar language on 75 meters, or the jamming on 20 meters,
these are things we have FIRST HAND experience with. Let's leave the matter
of Copyright Law where it belongs... in a United States Court of Law. This
matter is going WAY past "self-policing" and is getting really close to a
vigilante committee.

Mark Bitterlich          /\   The opinions expressed herein are my own,
WA3JPY WB4UOU            \/   but I also believe that they should be yours.
[e-mail]  /\
[e-mail]   \/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 05 Jul 89 14:31:16 MEZ
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TheNet controversy

relayed from DF2AU @ DK0MAV

re: TAPR statements on the NNC project

E-mail seems to be really unreliable and error prone - or why do the
statements given by some TAPR official not match the letters on file
here? So here is the story once again (shortform).  Please note the
uncertainties here and there. We had difficulties to decide what was
official and what was not. Local customs are sometimes hard to
understand, even if you spend 25% of your time in the US.

1. Once there was a letter from Tucson to NORD><LINK asking us to put
TheNet on the NNC. We discussed that and decided to go that way,
knowing that the hardware was old and not the best possible. But it was
(as we thougth at that time) tested and ready stuff, documented as it
should be.

2. We visited some folks in Tucson and discussed the whole matter for
some hours. This included a lengthy statement on how and why TheNet was
done. Anyway, it was a nice and interesting evening.

3. As a result of all this we sent a letter to TAPR and after some
opposing statements of TAPR officials in E-mail (and a very upset
second letter from us) it officially arrived in Tucson.  This letter
stated the conditions under which we would put TheNet to the NNC. TAPR
agreed in writing and we had to fill in a form to get the NNC board.

4. Then the NNC showed up here, accompanied by 2 disk drives which we
had told them we didn't need. And we payed duties on the NNC board
(little) and on the disk drives (much). And just that amount we payed
for the drives TAPR offered to refund us (but we said no, because the
bank would get too much money off that). By the way, the documentation
that came along with the NNC was rather poor. When we shipped back that
stuff we included a copy of our local made, better drawings (if you
need a copy, tell us).

5. Later a modem board came along (after we requested it) without any
documentation (and no duties to pay on that, it was declared as a
gift). Don't care, a real engineer doesn't need any documentation, it
only leads to confusion.

6. Our intention was to release the first software by july this year
(TAPR knows that date since last summer). But our statements made last
year are read different in Tucson this year. So it is the end of the
story. Sorry for some folks over there.  But you only have to wait a
short time, the TNC-3 will be ready soon (from NORD><LINK and public
domain, what else?).

73, Georg, DF2AU @ DK0MAV, Chairman NORD><LINK


re: Phil Karn's cloning procedures

What we did and the way we did it is perfectly legal here in Germany
and we doubt if it is illegal in US, but I am no expert on that. I
don't know what type of company Phil Karn is working for but from my
experiences as a freelancer with european and US companies he is
somewhat wrong. The US version of cloning is to hire the best man of
the competitor and give him the most tainted men available for help
(anybody need examples for that from history?). The european version is
more a reverse engineering (mostly because here it is harder to make
someone leave his company). All you cloning experts over there, don't
make fools of yourselves, try to be a little honest, even if it is
hard.

73, Georg, DF2AU @ DK0MAV
.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jul 89 09:14:53 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)

shelby!polya![e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

>If someone sells a product that is deliberately crippled in some way, I have
>NO problem with improving/enhancing/fixing it.  The product WAS paid for,
>after all.  The concept of 'pig in a poke - and you get no promise that it
>does what you want' seems to be particularly a software sales issue.  When I
>got a Unix system with non-working utilities did the distributor care? No.
>Did the manufacturer care? No, there was no claim that it worked in the
>license agreement.  Did AT&T care? No, they got their license fee.  Was it
>"legal" to reverse engineer (i.e. decompile) and fix the thing? No.

>Tough.  If someone wants to sue me for making a purchased product work
>correctly.. let them try.  In my opinion, copy protection and such things
>as Call Sign encryption fall into this category.  If I paid for the thing, I
>get to "fix" it if it breaks.  [I am not advocating stealing software].

I have a question about this statement and since there are so many
Copyright experts on this net maybe you can straighten me out. Isn't
there some kind of clause that says that if you purchase software for
your own use, you are allowed to change that software (i.e. decompile,
reverse-engineer, or whatever) as long as the product is not re-released
or resold?

Question number two. Let's say I bought NET/ROM from Software-2000 and
that it had some bugs. Let's say I reported these bugs and then was
told "tough bunouchies fella, buy the next upgrade".  And let's say
I did just that only to find some more bugs and then go through the
same thing again... so I got tired of that and went in and fixed it
myself. I didn't release it to the public domain... I just went in and
made it work right. Would this be legal?

Do you see where I am going with this? What is the aspect of running
TheNet (assuming you are a registered owner of NET/ROM)? This is an
interesting question! If I have purchased Mr. Raikes product with the
proper callsign and everything and then decide to run TheNet where do
I stand? This is not a question asking about the Pro's and Con's of
Nord><Link or anything else about "whether they were right or wrong"
it has to do with the USER'S of TheNet.

Is someone going to tell me that I MUST use crippled software and that
I have no choice? I can't fix it myself?  I can't let somebody else
SHOW ME how to fix it? And if they fix it, I can't USE it?

Question number three. Ok... it's obvious as a USER that wants something
that WORKS CORRECTLY what I would do under these circumstances. Now can
Software 2000 sue me for using this new software? Can they claim on one
hand that it is a direct copy and then sue me on the other for using
the EXACT COPY of the software that I've already paid for?


Hmmmm ...

Mark Bitterlich
WA3JPY@WB4UOU
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #171
*****************************************
 7-Jul-89 15:22:42-MDT,15280;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri,  7 Jul 89 15:00:12 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #172
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Fri,  7 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
          misinfo re TAPR-NET/ROM-NORD><LINK
             Robust link-layer protocols
  TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet) (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 21:33:44 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: misinfo re TAPR-NET/ROM-NORD><LINK

>This attitude bothers me.  The NNC with Nord><Link code on it would fill
>many networking needs for the majority of the ham groups who can neither
>afford the cost of higher speed nor find space for the equipment.  The
>NNC, perhaps with a little crystal goosing, could very adequately handle
>multiport switching at 9600 baud or below.

The attitude of most of the group I'm working with is that a 9600 baud max
packet switch just isn't worth the development effort.  9600 is the slowest
speed we're interested in spending time on... Oh sure, we'll keep a 1200 baud
channel on the local node for as long as there are still users with bare TNC's,
but 9.6kb is the slowest user access speed we're interested in.  And the
hardware cost and size of a PS-186 or K3MC card shouldn't vary far from what
the real price of an NNC would have been (well, maybe a bit, but still same
order of magnitude), and the code will be much easier to get working...

>I remember how long it took to get KE4ZV's digipeater code incorporated
>into a release of net and how much time it took to backfit each release.

I heard a lot about these bits for a long time.  I didn't actually *see* them
in a version of NET close enough to what I was hacking to be able to include
them until the 890421 release... which, after all, was the first release in
14 months.

>So yes, we know a bit about PCs as switches.  We also know that a 4 port
>switch occupies a full height 19" rack, the space for which is unavailable
>at most sites.  The NNC combo would do a nice job for these sites.

So will a PS-186.  It's a single board smaller than an XT motherboard.  Feed
it about 4W of power (fully CMOS) and hook it up to your favorite modems and
radios.  Done.  If that's still to pricey, K3MC's card will be able to run
standalone.  I don't expect it will move the packets that the PS-186 will, and
I don't expect to see the add-on hardware for it I envision for the PS-186,
but I've already agreed to #ifdef the PS-186 support for it... the V40 being
a compatible processor, and all...

>but what I bolt to the top of a mountain is a
>whole 'nuther matter.  I must have something that is reliable, reproducable,
>replaceable, affordable, and preferably, already built.

The PS-186 will be offered A&T from AEA for a fair price.  My code will be
free for amateur use, just as Phil's NOS base and all the enhancements are.
Ya want sources?  You'll get them.  I even dug around on CIS last night and
found some TC 2.0 -> ROM tools that are free, so you won't have to buy a
copy of Link'N'Locate just to work on the PS-186 bits, which I had thought
would be the case...  And since I do the "official releases" of NET/NOS, you
can count on these boards being fully supported in future releases.

Anyway, the point of all this (since I'm tired of talking about the TheNet
controversy) is that there's a much better solution for packet switching than
TNC-2's, or NNC's, with software that will drop in replace your TheNet nodes,
and be fully legal... that should be ready to go in about the timeframe of
the conference here in October.  If you're coming out to Colorado, expect to
see a demo... if you don't, it'll be because I expired from exhaustion...
nothing less!

73 - Bdale

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 20:10:49 GMT
From: shlump.dec.com![e-mail]  (Fred Goldstein k1io)
Subject: Robust link-layer protocols

Various brickbats have been thrown at AX.25 ever since its invention;
while there have been several incremental improvements made since its
conception, it is still fundamentally the same.  AX.25 (Layer 2, the
only one that it has) runs into problems because it has a few
fundamental flaws that just can't be papered over.  Its procedures are
based upon LAP-B, which was designed for a two-point wireline circuit.
Crowded radio channels have remarkably different characteristics -- how
can one protocol be expected to work so far out of its element?

Here is a recent observation:  Trying to read messages off our loudest
local RBBS, my connection was severed several times due to timeouts.  My
station received the transmissions okay, but the acknowledgements (RR)
were clobbered.  The RBBS was running a fairly large window (MAXFRAME
was 5 or so) so every time my RR was lost (because several others
transmitted at once after his 5-frame burst ended), the RBBS repeated
the whole thing.  After hitting max retries, it disconnected.

Now Phil Karn KA9Q demonstrated some time ago that it's better to keep
MAXFRAME at 1 for half-duplex channels.  I sent a message to the RBBS
sysop suggesting that.  But even then, AX.25 is far from ideal.  Even
with the vast improvements made by running TCP/IP over it, it's still
close to pathological.  (In general, TCP/IP survives by doing everything
in the transport layer, and not using LAP procedures.  That works, but
doesn't allow hop-by-hop retransmissions, which really pay off in bad
areas.)

So I'll suggest that once again, we re-open a discussion on the
development of a NEW data link layer protocol for packet radio.  One
that will both scale to higher speeds and packet sizes, and still
operate on congested slow channels.  How's that for starters?

Pitfalls to watch for

One of the big problems with AX.25 (and HDLC in general) is that it uses
"rollback".  That is, if you have a multi-frame window, then if the
non-last frame in your transmission is clobbered, then you retransmit it
plus all following ones.  How wasteful!  TCP (and other modern
protocols) have cleaner selective retransmissions.  (HDLC "selective
reject" isn't the way to go, though.)  This belongs in the data link
too.  BTW, my draft "A802" shared this flaw.  I apologize.

Another problem is short frame size.  But we all knew that, right?  Once
we get beyond 1200 bps, 256 octets is just too small.

And of course we need more flexible datagramme addressing.  But we all
knew that too, right?

And while digipeating (connectionless frame relay, to be specific) is a
clear lose, it's probably too useful to throw out entirely.  Even though
that's what routers are for.  But it's a close call.

And the transmit-side window, rather than receiver-credit window, is not
optimal.  While important for transport, data link layers can have
receiver credits too, especially with mixed-rate users on the same network.

Finally, there's the need for a "dynamic window":  If the window size is
greater than 1, and a frame is lost due to congestion (which you sort of
have to assume, on a half-duplex channel), then you should shrink the
window size back to 1 or some other small (multiplicative) fraction of
what it was, then grow it gracefully (i.e., add 1 per window-turn).
This is a servo-mechanism (also found in TCP, TP4, DECnet, etc.) that
keeps networks from going into congestion collapse.  Would that our
local RBBS had it!

Those are my suggestions for what should go into the new protocol.  I'd
also suggest ASCII-encoded (no shift!) of callsigns, which might make it
easier to use without special authorization.  And why require HDLC
hardware?  Other framing techniques (i.e., byte-count) are easier to
implement.

Is this a good topic for discussion here?  Let's at it.
       fred

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 14:13:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Frank)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>shelby!polya![e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:
>Isn't
>there some kind of clause that says that if you purchase software for
>your own use, you are allowed to change that software (i.e. decompile,
>reverse-engineer, or whatever) as long as the product is not re-released
>or resold?

   Most licenses I've seen explicitly disallow any form of reverse engineering
or decompilation.

>... I did just that only to find some more bugs and then go through the
>same thing again... so I got tired of that and went in and fixed it
>myself. I didn't release it to the public domain... I just went in and
>made it work right. Would this be legal?

   Strictly speaking, probably not.  But how would anyone catch you?  The
reverse-engineering clause strikes me as unenforceable as long as you
don't go showing other people how to do it, or giving away reverse-
engineered versions.

>Is someone going to tell me that I MUST use crippled software and that
>I have no choice? I can't fix it myself?  I can't let somebody else
>SHOW ME how to fix it? And if they fix it, I can't USE it?

   The universe of options is not closed.  You are not restricted to
(a) running bad but legit NET/ROM, or (b) running illegitimate knock-
offs of NET/ROM, which you seem to feel are somehow technically
superior.  Here, for your edification, are a few more possibilities:

   (c) Write your own NET/ROM.

   (d) Take my NET/ROM code, which is much better than the junk being
       propagated by Raikes, Nord><Link, et al, and port it to your
       favorite platform.  The copyright notice on my code says that
       it may be used in any form for non-commercial purposes
       as long as proper attribution is given.  That means you could
       add NET/ROM transport to your BBS system, or build your own
       node, and give either away for free.

   (e) Stop using bad protocols (even my implementation is constrained
       by how bad NET/ROM protocols are), and try something else.  If
       you feel that the only kind of networking you could ever do
       involves inadequate, outmoded hardware (i.e. TNC-2s), get the
       excellent ROSE switch ROMs and throw away all those buggy
       Software 2000 products you are complaining about.  Or, if you are
       open minded about hardware, run Phil's TCP/IP package, or
       develop something of your own.

   As to the copyright issue:

   Let me give you an analogy.  You buy a spreadsheet program from
Company L, and it has bugs and misfeatures (hypothetically speaking).
You contact company L, and they say, "Tough."  So, you patch the program
to fix the worst of the problems, and you just use it for yourself.
No problem so far.  However, there is some guy, let's call him Mr. N.,
who disassembles Company L.'s spreadsheet, recodes it in C, and adds
some features and fixes some bugs, then offers you the fixed version
and the source code for free.  You not only accept, but you put up
Mr. N.'s software on a public access system for everyone else to use,
attracting a lot of attention to Mr. N. and his activities.

   What should Company L. do?  If it doesn't move to protect its
copyright, it is possible for that copyright to lose its validity.
When you modified its product in the privacy of your home, there was
no real issue.  However, when widespread use is made of a product
which is not just reverse-engineered but copied whole cloth, L. has
no choice but to take some kind of action.  Contrary to previous
postings, that action does *not* have to be in court:  Xerox spends
a lot of money on apprently silly ads saying, "Xerox is *not* a
generic term for photocopy machines!"  Given his lack of deep pockets,
it should come as no surprise that Mr. Raikes chose informal means to
try and protect his copyright.

   The inadequacy of a product (which inadequacy may or may not exist
in your opinion only) does not give you the right to copy and distribute
it free of charge to other people.  It does not void the copyright.  The
copyright protects only the expression of the idea; it does not guarantee
fitness for use.

>Question number three. Ok... it's obvious as a USER that wants something
>that WORKS CORRECTLY what I would do under these circumstances. Now can
>Software 2000 sue me for using this new software? Can they claim on one
>hand that it is a direct copy and then sue me on the other for using
>the EXACT COPY of the software that I've already paid for?

   They probably can't sue *you*.  However, they can take means short
of suing you to try and protect their copyright, and their failure to
take these actions may be used later in court to invalidate their
copyright claim.

   -- Dan

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 21:09:05 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

>This may be a hopelessly naive question, but anyway: is the Software2000
>that brings us NET/ROM the same Software2000 that brought us TurboDOS?

Yes.  Same guy.

Bdale

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 89 21:17:11 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

Ok, John.  I understand your position a lot better now.  I don't necessarily
agree with you, but I understand.

>Then TAPR in effect demanded Nord><Link prove a negative.  I'm not sure
>just what response would have been "right" at this point.

I'd have been pleased to receive a detailed description of the process used to
create TheNet.  A little open honesty would have gone a long way... What we
got was a lot of verbage.  But that's a moot point now.

>The best thing TAPR could have done was stay neutral.  They did not and
>instead took sides.  That is the basis of my criticism.

Our intention in all of this has been to *not* take sides.  The recall of the
NNC could I suppose be interpreted as TAPR siding with Ron/S2000, but I don't
think that's entirely true.

>Now an injuction of this sort would have been impossible to enforce but
>it would have delivered a powerful message to the community.  If I had
>seen a notice of injunctive relief, I'd have certainly given the matter
>a reconsideration.  I'd probably not have used either set.

Agreed.

>BTW, we gonna ever see some TNC-2 sources????? :-)

Answer 1:  Sure... KISS by K3MC, included in the NET distribution.

Answer 2:  Ask Howie... But then, why would we care?  We all run NET now,
       don't we?  :-) :-) :-)

73 - Bdale

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #172
*****************************************
 8-Jul-89 17:18:33-MDT,15214;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat,  8 Jul 89 15:11:15 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #173
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Sat,  8 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
             Robust link-layer protocols
  TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)  (2 msgs)
        Three technical questions for the net
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 19:48:39 GMT
From: rochester!rit!cci632![e-mail]  (Just another hired gun (n2hkd))
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article>  Camron "Cam" Spillman writes:
;I am a host-based UNIX user in the St. Louis MO area.  I know nothing
;about packet radio.  An old friend who lives in the Dallas, TX area
;recently gave me some info about his packet radio ID/address (?)
;and said he thought we might be able to "gateway" somehow for
;electronic mail.  He is a packet radio enthusiast with an ID on a
;packet BBS, but knows nothing about the UNIX side of things.
;
;I would appreciate it if anyone can tell me how to get from INET
;or UUCP to packet radio BBS nodes and back.  This has probably
;been covered on this newsgroup and is boring to trivial, so please
;just reply to me via e-mail.

I can't recall a discussion of this in the recent year or so.
There a few PBBS' who also have a a usenet interconnect. But I
do not know of one which allows a user to bridge to the two worlds.

Some of us in this area talked about a Usent transfer over the air, but
I've been kind of busy lately to get into it. The fall will be a good time
for that. I would be more than willing to set this all up, but I'd like
some help. Therefore if there is any one who would like to help out, I'd
certainly would be willing. As of right now I have a unix box (unused),
and a second PC. I have just ordered a DRSI Board for it and will have
a 100w 2m radio (as opposed to a none dedicated 30w radio) ready soon.
I have a direct (pc or unix box) mail feed availble now (usenet) and
I can get a news feed as needed.

So if anyone is interested, I should be doable, the hard part will be
the intelligent screening of what comes from Usent and goes over the air.
There are some things that are no nos, like language and businesss stuff.
Then again if the mail sender has a callsign in it, then I won't screen
it. If it doesn't orginate from a HAM then I would have to garauntee it's
"legality" for Transmission. ANy thoughts about this would be appreciated.
And yes I doubt that I can send all.sex even If it were rot13 or otherwise
enrcypted.

If anyone has done this, please enquiring minds need to know...
thanks
A
a 2 meter 100w radio (as opposed to 30w) ready soon.
--
 my signature file just got squashed......................
email:   cb@cci632     or    !rochester!kodak!n2hkd!curtis
Curtis Braun, Computronics, PO Box 1002 Fairport NY, 14450

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 89 23:33:08 GMT
From: jupiter![e-mail]  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Robust link-layer protocols

Fred,

Thank you for your comments. Many are good ideas.

Note that it has been almost a year since a new amateur radio frame
addressing structure has been proposed. It addresses (sorry) some of the
deficiencies you mentioned with AX.25 addressing, such as the rigid
field size and the gratuitous use of "shifted ASCII". However, it
doesn't specify the logical link control sublayer, except to say that
there can be more than one (a major improvement over AX.25, BTW.)
Nevertheless, there hasn't been a big rush to implement it mainly
because the existing address sublayer in AX.25 works reasonably well for
most purposes.

The part of AX.25 that is really brain-damaged is the logical link
control sublayer (i.e., LAPB) that sits on top of the addressing
structure, and you're quite right in your comments about it.  At least
we're in good company here; the LLC layers in IEEE 802 are just as bad,
since they are also based on LAPB.

Now that several years have passed since I first presented the bit about
MAXFRAME=1 being optimal for half duplex channels, I am reasonably
convinced that it is a general result that should continue to hold as
long as we have half duplex channels with reasonable modem keyup delays.

One problem in making it work in practice, however, is that there isn't
necessarily a match between the size of the datagram being sent and the
optimal frame size on the link. Yes, we now have an AX.25 Level 2
segmentation procedure (suggested by K3NA and implemented by yours
truly) that can chop up a big datagram into a lot of little frames for
transmission over a poor link, but we do not have the complementary
facility for sending lots of little datagrams in one big link level
frame, obtaining better efficiency when the link is good. This is
something that ought to be provided in any new protocol that is
developed.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Jul 89 12:36:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)

>>Isn't there some kind of clause that says that if you purchase software
>>for your own use, you are allowed to change that software (i.e. decompile,
>>reverse-engineer, or whatever) as long as the product is not re-released
>>or resold?

[e-mail] (Dan Frank) replies:

>Most licenses I've seen explicitly disallow any form of reverse engineering
>or decompilation.

My fault, I did not say this very well. What I was referring to was a
federal ruling that addressed the modification of purchased software,
the modification being for your own use or entertainment only. The
ruling would be held in precedence over any licensing agreement.

>   The universe of options is not closed.  You are not restricted to
>(a) running bad but legit NET/ROM, or (b) running illegitimate knock-
>offs of NET/ROM, which you seem to feel are somehow technically
>superior.  Here, for your edification, are a few more possibilities:

Dan... I don't feel TheNet is 'technically superior' and I never used
words to that effect. What TheNet did offer me was:

1. A version that fixed all the bugs for free that I had paid to
get from NET/ROM.
2. A "convers node" that allowed group conferencing similar to
packet cluster.
3. A backbone version with sysop validation of callsigns.
4. A few extra features that I used. (2 remote control functions and a
node 'info' feature.

>   (c) Write your own NET/ROM.

Easy for you to say.  (YOU DID DO THAT!  And my hat is off to you!!!!)
Unfortunately the simple fact is that I have neither your talent or
ability which I admit is a pretty lame excuse!   :-)

>   (d) Take my NET/ROM code, which is much better than the junk being
>       propagated by Raikes, Nord><Link, et al, and port it to your
>       favorite platform.  The copyright notice on my code says that
>       it may be used in any form for non-commercial purposes
>       as long as proper attribution is given.  That means you could
>       add NET/ROM transport to your BBS system, or build your own
>       node, and give either away for free.

Agreed.... thanks.

>   (e) Stop using bad protocols (even my implementation is constrained
>       by how bad NET/ROM protocols are), and try something else.  If
>       you feel that the only kind of networking you could ever do
>       involves inadequate, outmoded hardware (i.e. TNC-2s), get the
>       excellent ROSE switch ROMs and throw away all those buggy
>       Software 2000 products you are complaining about.  Or, if you are
>       open minded about hardware, run Phil's TCP/IP package, or
>       develop something of your own.

I do run Phil's package and love it, however a network requires
'more than one' and getting everybody and his brother to go switcho
chango over to tcp/ip is easier said than done. ROSE sounds viable.
However ROSE was one very big mess here a few years ago with  "yes
it's available .... er ... no it's not ... er ... yes it is... er...
call us back in 2 months". That's why NET/ROM took off to begin with
(in this area anyway). However your suggestion is a good one, thanks.

>   As to the copyright issue:
>   What should Company L. do?  If it doesn't move to protect its
>copyright, it is possible for that copyright to lose its validity.

This includes calling people's employers in such a way as to cause
them professional embarrassment when they are simply a USER and not
the DEVELOPER?  Sorry Dan, I hear what you're saying but since this
was thrown into the public forum you have to judge morals and ethics
along with legalities.... or I should say that I CHOOSE to do so.
Ask yourself this question. Has R. Raikes helped or hurt packet radio
or amateur radio in general? Now take Nord><Link, say what you will
about them, I believe that their hearts were always in the right place
regardless of the outcome, and this assumes that everything bad said
about them is true. So being that this IS NOT a court of law and seeing
that I can choose who I support based on 'how I feel' about the players
involved.... R. Raikes loses.

>Contrary to previous
>postings, that action does *not* have to be in court:  Xerox spends
>a lot of money on apparently silly ads saying, "Xerox is *not* a
>generic term for photocopy machines!"  Given his lack of deep pockets,
>it should come as no surprise that Mr. Raikes chose informal means to
>try and protect his copyright.

No it does not have to be a court action. If the best interests of
Amateur Radio were considered it probably SHOULD HAVE BEEN a court
action, but given that the only consideration of R. Raikes IS the
depth of his pockets then I agree... it was no surprise.

>The copyright protects only the expression of the idea; it does not
>guarantee fitness for use.

Hmmm, so then I can sue HIM for false advertising?  :-)

Seriously though... let's consider this. NET/ROM was all there was
for a little while. People bought and used it, then a lot of us switched
to TheNet because it was free and it offered more options. Now there
are even more options available, however they are NOT AS EASY to get
going YET, (with ROSE being a possible exception). Call me timid, but
I hesitate putting a PC with hard drive on a 2000 foot tower in a box
that is not temperature controlled that I can't get to without massive
scheduling. Putting a TAPR 9600 baud radio modem in there with some
kind of TNC controlling it is a little easier for me to pull off right
now. Not all of us have natural made towers (mountains) with nice little
temperature controlled huts to put this stuff in. Mountain tops are bad
enough... 2000 foot towers are at least as bad or possibly worse!
(Think about an ice storm....and what happens when it starts to MELT.
Dropping a 30 lb. piece of ice on a cabinet from a few thousand feet
up is not covered in the warranty  :-)

There are three types of packet people in the world today:
1. Those that DEVELOP the "new stuff".
2. Those that IMPLEMENT the "new stuff".
3. Those that USE the "new stuff".

You are a number 1,  I am a number 2.  This whole issue with TheNet and
NET/ROM is soon to become moot anyway.  In just a few months I am told
that there will be whole new ways (much better) of doing "things". Faster,
smaller, more capable. There is no need to murder TheNet and NET/ROM, just
let it die a natural death like AM on 20 meters. Packet technology is
changing so fast that by the time "the world" comes to a decision on
who did what to whom, it'll be too late anyway.

The only reason I opened my big mouth was because I saw people with very
respectable backgrounds offering their points of view from a purely legal
standpoint, but they carefully avoided the more 'seedy' factors involved.

The thing about a 'public forum' is that there are no rules of evidence,
there are no qualifications for witnesses, you can alter, twist or simply
lie about the facts or just make up some of your own. There are no winners,
just survivors. I apologize for continuing this mess ... really.

Flames will be humbly accepted.  Well.... 'gracefully' accepted anyway! :-)


Mark Bitterlich          /\
WA3JPY@WB4UOU            ::
[e-mail]  ::
[e-mail]   \/

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 89 14:02:39 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Dan Frank)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: Doc about TCP/IP and TheNet)

   Phil has pointed out to me off-line that I am probably confusing copyright
and trademark when discussing how failure to enforce could result in loss
of copyright.  That certainly is true of trademark, but is not automatically
true of copyright.

   On the other hand, I'd hate to end up in court trying to protect a copyright
I haven't tried to enforce via other means over the last few years ...

   -- Dan, W9NK

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 07 Jul 89 22:27:51 EDT
From: Joseph Skoler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Three technical questions for the net

Greetings to all those on the net,

I have three questions that I've been pondering for
some time now and would appreciate some feedback from
all those who might be able to answer my queries.

1)  What is the difference between the ~$10.00 inline
lightning arrestors and the ~$40.00 gas-charge (or is
it dis-charge, hi) arrestors?  (please, other than
approximately $30.00.)  Is there a difference in
performance?  Am I safe buying the cheaper type (a
reliable name like Cushcraft makes them).

2)  I have been using an old mobile rig on 2 meters for
packet and would like to use the HT (Santec HT1200).
My problem is that the low power setting is not strong
enough, and the high power setting creates indecipherable
packet.  I can monitor the output and it seems that on
low power the packets are clean, but on high they are
garbled.  I am using a AC-power supply on the HT and
am wondering if stray RF on the power line to the HT
could be causing the problem.  The HT seems to be working
fine otherwise on high power, that is, voice comes out
just fine.  Any ideas, by all means other than my own,
are welcome.

3)  I picked up a motorola HT-220, used, of course, which
operates in the 470 mhz range and was wondering what it
would take to convert it to the ham 440 mhz band.  I
know the crystals are available.  It's the tune up that
is a bit scary.  Could it be done by someone who has
never done such a thing, with instructions that is?


Thanks to all, 73,
Joseph Skoler,  KC2YU
BITNET:  SKOHC@CUNYVM

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #173
*****************************************
11-Jul-89 10:35:02-MDT,10145;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 89 10:00:50 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #174
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Tue, 11 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
             Need KISS for TNC-1
         Packet operating guide for beginners
             Robust link-layer protocols
        to clone or not to clone / hen or egg?
            TRS80 Model 100 Rams for sale
                 White Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 18:19:41 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!infinet!ulowell!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Just another hired gun (n2hkd)) writes:

   the intelligent screening of what comes from Usent and goes over the air.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   There are some things that are no nos, like language and businesss stuff.
   Then again if the mail sender has a callsign in it, then I won't screen
   it. If it doesn't orginate from a HAM then I would have to garauntee it's
   "legality" for Transmission. ANy thoughts about this would be appreciated.

Havg a callsing in it doesn't make it suitable for the air.  I have
seen many postings in usenet from hams that wouldn't be suitable.  Has
the following been suggested: add a new field to the mail or news
message called "Callsign:" or maybe "Amateur Call:" that would
identify the message came from a ham and is suitable and intended to
go out over the radio.  This way automatic gateways of rec.ham-radio
could be made.

If people couldn't get their mail or new software to do this then it
could be part of the message anywhere in the file ("^Callsign: ").

Any problems?

 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra![e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 23:16:21 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd![e-mail]  (Mark A. Matthews)
Subject: Need KISS for TNC-1

Can someone mail me a copy of the prom-able KISS code for the TNC-1?  Any
documented hex format will do.  Thanks.

--
-Mark ([e-mail] -or- ..!tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mam)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 19:21:15 GMT
From: philmtl!philabs!briar.philips.com![e-mail]  (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201)
Subject: Packet operating guide for beginners

This is a brief guide for the beginning packeteer.  This should help him
make some sense of what he sees on the air just after getting his computer,
TNC and rig set up correctly.  It describes some beginner's errors (some that
I made, and I figure that these are somewhat common).  Nothing worse than
being a newcomer who ends up annoying unnecessarly the other users :-)

Packet Beginner's Guide  V1.0   wa2ise

Let's assume that you have set up a packet station and you have
verified that it is working.  And you have monitored a packet channel
and seen various beacons and people connecting to BBS's and stuff.

 Probably the first thing to do is to find the nearest major BBS.
 These should be easy to identify, as they send a long preamble with
 the name of a club and maybe mention of the ARRL.  In north NJ, they
 have a -4 at the end of the call (this is called the SSID).  You'll
 need to find a favorite board to call it your "home" BBS.  Connect to
 it for the first time and it will ask you to supply your name and your
 "home" BBS call.  It should tell you what command and syntax it
 expects you to use.  If you goof up, the BBS should respond by telling
 you how to get a help message.

  The next interesting thing to do is to send some mail to a friend.
  You'll need to know his call and you need to know what his home BBS
  is.  You'll have to ask him for that.  To start, type MAIL
  <call>@<his home BBS>  Then the board will ask for a title of the
  message you are going to send.  It expects just a few words.  After
  that, you'll be told to type in the message and to end it by typing
  CONTROL Z or /EX on a line by itself.  That sends it on its way.
  Similary, you can post a public bullitin by doing SB ALL (just be
  sure it's worth reading).  You can get a list of bullitins by typing
  L.  Read one by typing R <number>.  Don't stay on a BBS too long (1/4
  hour max) as others will want to get on it.

   Do not confuse a personal or private BBS with the big BBS's.  The
   private BBS's are just personal packet mailboxes, for the owner's
   personal use (these have -15 SSID's).  Do not post public bullitins
   on a personal BBS!  You can leave a message for the owner on his
   board, but only for him.

    Nodes and Digipeaters:  The basic difference between these is that
    a node sends back to you an acknowledgement that it heard you ok
    before it relays the message to the destination, while the
    digipeater just relays the message and it is up to the destination
    to send back thru the digi the acknowledgement.  The node makes a
    better path.  But don't use nodes or digis unless you have to, as
    the repeating eats up time that other people could use on a crowded
    freq.  You can identify a node when you are connected to one by
    typing "?".  It will come back with a line of stuff including
    "nodes" and "parms".  If you then type "nodes", you'll get a list
    of other nodes it can link to.  Some nodes can connect you to
    something on another frequency.  A digi will just sit and not do
    much if you connect to it and nothing else.

     About Beacons:  You should resist the temtation to use your
     beacon.  It will only clutter the freq, and annoy other users.
     Only public BBSs, nodes and digis have a need to beacon.

hope this helps.  This is public domain, use it, modify it, add to it,
(correct it :-)  ), distribute it if you want.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
73 de WA2ISE  |   hope that China (and everywhere else) gets democracy soon.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 02:17:28 GMT
From: att!cbnewsd![e-mail]  (john.d.unruh)
Subject: Robust link-layer protocols

A lot of packet radio link layer work was done for DARPA.  Essentially, they
had a datagram protocol like IP (actually it did transmit IP datagrams) but
instead of embedding them in AX.25, it had its own protocol.  The protocols
are well documented, and I can look up some of the references if you would
like.

They used different access methods, spread spectrum code division multiple
access with convolutional coding error detection and correction, and they
ran at much higher speeds (than 1200 bps), like 100 kbps.  They actually
built some medium sized networks that worked, and the last stuff I saw
published was on how to deal with larger networks.  Either the effort has
stopped or gone classified, because I have not seen anything much in journals
for the last year or so.

John Unruh

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 01:09:22 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!sequent![e-mail]  (Jeff Berkowitz)
Subject: to clone or not to clone / hen or egg?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>If you like clones or not: it's your choice. If you don't like them
>stay clear of PCs not labeled with a blue button.

NONSENSE.

This statement is TOTALLY unrelated to the issue.  The programmers of
this "clone" have already as much as admitted that they disassembled
and analyzed the NET/ROM code, line by line.

Anyone who has been around the development of an IBM PC "clone" can
tell you that it's a completely different animal.  The companies that
"clone" PC BIOS ROMs go to SERIOUS lengths to ensure that the reverse
engineering is done without reference to the original source code.

For example, managers of one BIOS clone project that I am aware of
refused to hire programmers with *any* PC experience of any kind.
In addition, all the programmers signed legal documents agreeing
not to make reference to the published BIOS ROM code, etc.

The most interesting part of the story is that some of the work on
this same machine was done "offshore" in, uh, err, an Asian country.
The developers there didn't have quite the same scruples.  IBM
analyzed the product, caught them at it, and took successful
legal action to prevent the machine from being marketed in the US.
The manufacture was forced to withdraw the machine from the market
for re-engineering on the copied portion.  The delay knocked the
machine out of a preeminent position in the marketplace and into
historical obscurity.

--
Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM                    uunet!sequent!jjb
Sequent Computer Systems                Custom Systems Group

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 16:45:57 GMT
From: zephyr!tektronix!orca![e-mail]  (Mike Reiney)
Subject: TRS80 Model 100 Rams for sale

I have 4 each 8K ram expansion modules for the Model 100.
I'm told they cost $50 each if you can find them.
I'll sell all 4 for $100.  Or make an offer on fewer.
miker

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 89 04:30:47 GMT
From: swituc![e-mail]  (Admin)
Subject: White Pages

I would be interested in compiling a white pages of vhf packet
paths for North America.  Please send the following info to me
at kn7b@wb7tls in Tucson, AZ and I will compile and distribute
the results to those interested.

1)      Call
2)      BBS call
3)      zip code

Thanks and 73,
Pat Berry KN7B
kn7b@wb7tls
uunet!arizona!swituc!pmb

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #174
*****************************************
12-Jul-89 05:46:54-MDT,8141;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 89 05:00:51 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #175
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Wed, 12 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
          Internet Domain - How it fits in globally
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
             Robust link-layer protocols
        Three technical questions for the net
                 White Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 13:54:38 GMT
From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (j.gordon.beattie)
Subject: Internet Domain - How it fits in globally

I am no internet domain expert, but I seem to recall that ".COM", ".EDU",
".GOV", ".MIL", ".ORG", ".US", etc. are all domains within the
Internet domain.  The Internet is a subdomain of the US DoD.

The next step is a bit unclear to me...is it "ORG" followed by "ISO"
as the last step in the hierarchy? This would yield a complete
string of:

"host.city.state.us.internet.dod.org.iso".

Can someone confirm/deny this?

I base this on the recollection that the DoD has one of
two domain  IDs given to the US by ISO from its branch "Identified
Organizations".

A few years ago we obtained such a domain ID from ISO
for "Amateur Radio OSI" and we have broken it down by both
geographical and organizational lines as was done by the internet
folks.  We have a few different branches, which are described
elsewhere, but I was somewhat curious how the internet handles
domains on other branches of the global domain tree.
The picture shown below illustrates my understanding,
could someone comment on this?


                  iso(1)
   /------------------/-------/ \---------\---------------------\
  /                  /                      \                     \
...                 DCC(?)     Identified Organizations(3)        ....
                       /
      /-------------/-----------/----/-----------------------\
    /             /           /                                \
  ...           dod(5)     nbs(6)     ....       Amateur Radio OSI(11)
          /
        internet(1)
     /------/------\------\-------- etc.
    /      /         \      \
      ORG     GOV        US     MIL






Thanks,

J. Gordon Beattie, Jr.
201-615-4168 (O)
201-387=8896 (H)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 15:43:52 GMT
From: sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!swbatl![e-mail]  (5415)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Johnathan Vail) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Just another hired gun (n2hkd)) writes:
>
>   the intelligent screening of what comes from Usent and goes over the air.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   There are some things that are no nos, like language and businesss stuff.
>   Then again if the mail sender has a callsign in it, then I won't screen
>   it. If it doesn't orginate from a HAM then I would have to garauntee it's
>   "legality" for Transmission. ANy thoughts about this would be appreciated.

Some thoughts:

- A moderated gateway/newsgroup ensures only suitable comm gets out.  Problem
  is, who's gonna moderate?  If traffic mushrooms, it could be a time-consuming
  burden for the moderator.

- Filter scripts for the "no-no" words could kill the most obvious offensive
  stuff, but would be hard to determine commercial intent, etc.  But, I
  could see a script that kicks off and if it finds offensive materials,
  turns the message around and back to the sender with an error message
  telling them what they did wrong.

All of this is assuming that the sender knows radio laws and is an operator.
But none of these ideas really provide me, the non-ham, with a way to get
mail to my packet friends.  Is/would sending a piece of mail via a gateway
into a packet bbs tantamount to broadcast?  Do I need a license?  If I don't,
I'm sure the sysop would be responsible for my comm.

...doesn't seem like such a simple idea anymore... Hmm... maybe a CB radio
gateway....  :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| J. Camron "Cam" Spillman - Southwestern Bell Telephone | [e-mail] |
|     GHQ Finance Mechanization, St. Louis, Missouri     |  uunet!swbatl!cam  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 15:17:34 GMT
From: peregrine!ccicpg!cci632![e-mail]  (Just another hired gun (n2hkd))
Subject: Robust link-layer protocols

Flaoting packet size is important. If the link is good go big,
if the link is fast go bigger, etc If the BBS want s 2 character
code , go small...

One thing I'd like to see is a multi-drop possibility. Ie, there
are two or three BBS's or personal machines. Let them eaves drop
on the BBS to BBS TX and when all the data is transfered. then
let each unit request the missing packets if any. This requires
some houskeeping, but it sure could keep the QRM down around here.

All thise people with dedicated packet system ( running computer with
packete all the time) came get their mail and the BBS 'ALL' mail on their
machine and won't have to waste bandwidth with loggin onto the BBS
and read the same messages as everyh one else. Why do like usenet with
modems when we can share the information!! (yes I have worked on a
system which uses 8530 hdlc and multi-drop, we can download megabytes
on dozen's of different machines in dozen's of locations at the same
time).
--
I volunteered for the rights in America, and now I'm losing them, AAARGHH
email:   cb@cci632  or !rochester!kodak!n2hkd!curtis   Fight for your RIGHTS!
Curtis Braun, N2HKD, Computronics, PO Box 1002 Fairport NY, 14450

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 89 22:53:11 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: Three technical questions for the net

>enough, and the high power setting creates indecipherable
>packet.  I can monitor the output and it seems that on
>low power the packets are clean, but on high they are
>garbled.  I am using a AC-power supply on the HT and
>am wondering if stray RF on the power line to the HT
>could be causing the problem.

I had a very similar problem with a TNC-2 lashed to a Kenwood 2600 HT about
two years ago.  The problem turned out to be excessive RF getting into the
audio cables... and from there into the TNC.  The TNC's audio stage got
semi-saturated by the RF, and thus the crunched audio.  The quick hack to see
if that was really the problem (it was!) was to put a ferrite toroid around
the cables between the HT and the TNC.  The long-term fix was to run 3 pieces
of RG-188 coax (instead of the loosely shielded mic cable), one for PTT, one
for TX, and one for RX.  All three shields were bonded to the ground on the
radio end, and left floating at the TNC end.  It worked great.  Beware of
RF on the audio wires...

With the cover off my TNC-2 in the same configuration, the PTT would lock up
because the FET saturated...

Best operating position was TNC sitting on top of TNC with TNC case grounded,
and the above cable scheme.

73 - Bdale, N3EUA

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 22:41:48 GMT
From: usc!hamal.usc.edu![e-mail]  (Dick Mead)
Subject: White Pages

    How about including the latitude and longitude of the site and
    noting if it is IP/Netrom/digi/whatever and any alias, and its
    frequency of operation. Then please post the white pages to the net.
    73's
    Dick WB6NGC

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #175
*****************************************
13-Jul-89 20:42:56-MDT,8604;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 89 20:00:41 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #176
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Thu, 13 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
               internet domains
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
             Need KISS for TNC-1
              TARP TNC2 problems
  TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet) (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 14:06:00 EDT
From: "HUNTRESS G.B." <[e-mail]>
Subject: internet domains

>Date: 11 Jul 89 13:54:38 GMT
>From: att!cbnewsh![e-mail]  (j.gordon.beattie)
>Subject: Internet Domain - How it fits in globally

>I am no internet domain expert, but I seem to recall that ".COM", ".EDU",
>".GOV", ".MIL", ".ORG", ".US", etc. are all domains within the
>Internet domain.  The Internet is a subdomain of the US DoD.

I have an internet domain map (current as of 27 sep 88) hanging on
my wall, courtesy of SRI International (I think that they maintain
the host tables and do a lot of the internet routing).

The chart (12 pages) is organized like a subdirectory structure with
(oddly enough!) ROOT at the top.

According to this chart, valid domains are:

AR, ARPA, AT, AU, BE, CA, CH, CL, COM, DE, DK, EDU,
ES, FI, FR, GOV, IE, IL, IRL, IS, IT, JP, KR, MIL,
MY, NET, NL, NO, NZ, ORG, PT, SE, TH, UK, US

Then there are dozens of sub-domains below this layer, such as
UU below NET, and FIDO below ORG.  It makes me feel very insignificant
when I think that my local cluster of over 30 Vaxs is 3 bubbles below
MIL!!


>The next step is a bit unclear to me...is it "ORG" followed by "ISO"

I don't see ISO anywhere on the chart.

Sorry, but I can only offer observations, not explanations about internet.
However, the current domain map (and a _lot_ of other stuff) is
available via anonymous FTP login to SRI-NIC.ARPA.  I think it is
a .tar postscript file located somewhere under netinfo.dist.


Gary Huntress
[e-mail]




------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 20:40:43 GMT
From: amdahl!pacbell!noe![e-mail]  (Marc de Groot)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>But none of these ideas really provide me, the non-ham, with a way to get
>mail to my packet friends.  Is/would sending a piece of mail via a gateway
>into a packet bbs tantamount to broadcast?  Do I need a license?  If I don't,
>I'm sure the sysop would be responsible for my comm.

I am operating an e-mail gateway between the Internet and ham radio
TCP/IP users.  I read ALL messages by hand as they pass through
the gateway.  I bounce messages that contain unpassable material.

I forward messages from non-hams all the time.  The only restriction
is that I must be at my station controlling transmissions.
--
Marc de Groot (KG6KF)                   These ARE my employer's opinions!
Noe Systems, San Francisco
UUCP: uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc
Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 89 14:25:54 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpmwtd![e-mail]  (Dave McQuate)
Subject: Need KISS for TNC-1

I'd like a copy, too, please.
Thanks,
Dave McQuate

Voice:          [phone]
ARPANET:        [e-mail]
INTERNET:       [e-mail]
UUCP:           ...hplabs!hpmwtd!davem

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 89 10:43 N
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: TARP TNC2 problems

I have a very big problem with my tnc2 TARP 1.1.5 !  I am using an
Amiga computer A1000 with one serial port.  The TNC2 work not nok via
the serial line i.e. sometimes by sending large strings to the TNC
letters are lost or destroyed.  I have tested the parity by setting
PAR to 1, 2 ,3 ,0 there isn't any difference in setting PAR to
different values !!!! [WHY ?????]  I have also connected the TNC to a
VME System and a MS-DOS SYSTEM with the same effect !!!  What have to
be done to set the TNC to following parameters:

speed 9600
no parity
8 bits
1 stopbit
Handshake protokol !

???????????

Please give me a hint !

73 de DF3UM Frank

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 22:44:09 GMT
From: emory!stiatl![e-mail]  (John DeArmond)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:
>In Georgia, sufficient anger arose that GRAPES took an official position
>against NET/ROM.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jack S. Brindle) writes:
>As a member of the Grapes board of directors I feel that an explanation/
>correction must be made to John's comment here.


All I can say, Jack, is that you just shoulda been there.  Memory is so
much more accurate in the first person.  Sheesh!

john


--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jul 89 22:30:44 GMT
From: emory!stiatl![e-mail]  (John DeArmond)
Subject: TheNet controversy (was Re: DOC about TCP/IP and TheNet)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat Berry) writes:
(idiotic blather deleted)

>I bet you would be the first to raise a fuss if someone stole YOUR product.
>I can't figure out if you are a) naive, b) a hypocrite, c) playing devil's
>advocate, or d) a lunatic.
>I have to go now, I want to appologize to all my neighbors for calling
>them burglars... you see, I put in this alarm system and have locks on
>my doors...
>
>Pat Berry KN7B
>uunet!arizona!swituc!pmb
>7030Khz

I normally don't respond to such idiotic postings but I felt a clarification
of my personal position regarding software is.  I will clarify that I am
speaking now strictly for myself and not Sales Technologies.

Pat, I am one of the more enlightened programmers who realizes that
"theft of my product" is essentially a non-issue.  I realize, as do most
shareware authors, that copying in and of itself is actually free publicity.
Most people will buy a package that they make more than incidental use of
if for no other reason than to get the manuals.  I would much rather that
someone buy my product because they have used a copy and like it than to
loose that customer by insulting him with some bogus shrinkwrap license
statement.

It comes back to how you view your customers.  Yours and apparently
Raikes' view is that the customer is the enemy, someone to be protected
against and who is good only for his or her money.  It's this view
that leads to copy protection, bull sh*t license "agreements" and
other plagues of our times.  My view of the customer, on the other hand,
is that of a friend and ally, someone who thinks enough of my product
to buy it.  I am an 'in abstencia' partner in his enterprise.  And if
he feels that my software is not good enough to buy a copy, then I don't
really want an association.  I subscribe to the theory that most people
are basicly good and will do what's right.  I sometimes have to illustrate
what's right but that's no problem.  I would probably get upset if I found
someone profiting from my work but since that's never happened, I really
don't know.


Actually all of the code I've written before comming to ST that is not
customer-specific is in the public domain.  Even with customer-specific
projects, my contract reserves me the specific right to reuse code modules
as I see fit including giving them away.  You see, there is little business
value in a piece of code, per se.  Much more valuable is the design and
execution.

This is, of course, tangental to the Nord><Link discussion so back to our
regular programming.. PS:  Try to think next time before engaging keyboard.

john

--
John De Armond, WD4OQC                     | Manual? ... What manual ?!?
Sales Technologies, Inc.    Atlanta, GA    | This is Unix, My son, You
...!gatech!stiatl!john    **I am the NRA** | just GOTTA Know!!!

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #176
*****************************************
14-Jul-89 01:41:36-MDT,16249;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 89 01:00:27 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #177
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Fri, 14 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
             Gateway - 23-Jun-89 p 1 of 3
                 White Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 02:12:58 GMT
From: n8emr![e-mail]  (Gary Sanders)
Subject: Gateway - 23-Jun-89 p 1 of 3

==============================================================
|               Relayed from packet radio via                |
| N8EMR's Ham BBS, 614-457-4227 (1200/2400/19.2 telebit,8N1) |
==============================================================

Gateway: The ARRL Packet Radio Newsletter                       Part 1 of 3

Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, Editor   -   Volume 5, Number 20   -    June 23, 1989

         TOUR OF THE SCIOTO RIVER VALLEY WITH PACKET RADIO

The Central Ohio Amateur Radio Emergency Service used packet radio on
Mother's Day weekend, May 13-14, in support of the annual bicycle Tour of
the Scioto River Valley (TOSRV-89).  Portable packet-radio stations were
set up at the start, finish, three rest and food stops, and the TOSRV net
control.  Numerous messages were handled for the bikers such as "Have been
delayed by rain at Circleville food stop, wait for me at Lake White." A few
concerned damage to cyclists or their cycles.  Packeteers involved were
W8BKO (net control station), W8ELE, WA8YUO and W8MDK.  The K1LT-3 and
K1LT-4 digipeaters were set up in conjunction with a linked 2-meter voice
repeater system to provide both packet radio and voice coverage over the
entire 105-mile route.  Some 60 voice FM operators were positioned and in
communication with ambulances for medical support.

The N8XX Portable PBBS was set up at Lake White State Park, Waverly, Ohio
using a borrowed Toshiba T3100 with W0RLI version 9.07 software.  W3EOA and
N8XX solicited about 140 messages from the bikers.  Most of these were
third-party messages from participants to their relatives and friends and
were handled as such via AD8I and the packet-radio network.

TOSRV is one of the largest bicycle tours in the United States with some
6500 cyclists from all over the country.  It involves a 210-mile jaunt from
Columbus to Portsmouth, Ohio, on Saturday and a return trip on Sunday.  It
is a sight to behold!  For more details on the network and modus operandi
contact Bob Adams, W8BKO @ W8CQK, or Vic Keane, K1LT @ W8BKO.

by Hank Greeb, N8XX

N8EMR NOTE:.... K1lt can be reached at k1lt @ w8cqk and not w8bko...

               SAREX 2 COMES TO LIFE

The NASA Johnson Space Center Amateur Radio Club proudly announces the
birth of SAREX 2.  On May 30 at approximately 8:30 PM, the redesigned SAREX
2 hardware was first brought to life.  Included in this new equipment is
the Heathkit HK-21 micro TNC (donated by Heath) and the original SAREX SSTV
system.  The replacement of the original power supplies with new supplies
(donated by the ARRL Foundation) has made this new design possible within
the existing SAREX package while improving power efficiency and at the same
time reducing the weight of the system.  The SAREX prototype looks like a
newborn, an ugly set of wires and bread boards strung together with cables
and wires, beautiful only to its mother (the SAREX 2 team).

The first cries of the newborn were TV pictures on the monitor and captured
images on the SSTV system operated by Lou McFadin, W5DID.  Further cries
were then heard by a portable packet-radio station setup a few feet away
when Gerry Creager, N5JXS, and Don Noble, W5CLW, exchanged connects.  Jerry
Coles, KB5ARA, and Dwight Andrews, KA5IYI, fellow SAREX 2 team members,
also participated in this historic event.

from Jon Bloom, KE3Z

        PACKET RADIO AT HAMCOM '89/ARRL NATIONAL CONVENTION

Overall, the packet radio aspects of HamCom '89/ARRL National Convention in
Arlington, Texas, went off without a hitch on June 2-4.  The packet radio
forum, sponsored by Texas Packet Radio Society (TPRS), was a great success
this year with attendance on Saturday morning of more than 200 people and
continuing the rest of the day with approximately 100 people for all the
various forum talks.  The Sunday morning recaps increased in attendance
from last year.  TPRS videotaped the entire forum and will be releasing
some of the presentations for public usage later this summer through the
ARRL and TPRS.

There will be some changes in next year's packet radio forum at HamCom '90.
These should include making the discussion panel segment better (longer)
and adding more advanced topics to the forum.

The TPRS booth was very busy answering general packet-radio questions and
showing TexNet to new users.  John Koster, W9DDD, lugged his RICH node,
which was renamed HAMCOM for the convention, up to the Sheraton.  This
allowed the convention area access to the Texas TexNet network.  The W1AW/5
station operated packet radio on the 2-meter local access port frequency of
the HamCom TexNet node during the convention which allowed contacts to made
to W1AW/5 throughout the state.

The TPRS Annual Business Meeting was held Saturday.  The bylaws motion to
increase the board of directors to five was passed.  Elections took place
with the following members voted in as directors:

     2-year terms:

Harry Ridenour, N0CCW - Jim Brooks, W5ERO - Will Summers, WR5C

     1-year terms:

Greg Jones, WD5IVD - Carl Finke, WB5DDP

At the board of directors meeting the following officers were appointed:

     Harry Ridenour, N0CCW, president
     Greg Jones, WD5IVD, vice president
     Will Summers, WR5C, secretary
     Rick Russel, KF5RN, treasurer.

Saturday afternoon also saw the TPRS/AMSAT/TAPR hospitality suite in the
Sheraton which started at 5 PM.  Tom McDermott, N5EG, of TPRS and Bob
Goodman, AA5FR, of TPRS and AMSAT set up the suite.  Rumor has it that
there were six other hospitality suites in the hotel and ours was one of
the best attended.

by Greg Jones, WD5IVD


Gateway: The ARRL Packet Radio Newsletter                       Part 2 of 3

Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, Editor   -   Volume 5, Number 20   -    June 23, 1989

                  TCP/IP IN JAPAN

The Oimo Club of Japan has developed a news distribution system that runs
with KA9Q TCP/IP software package.  It is called the "Terakoya" system, and
consists of three different programs: "yomi," "kaki" and "soroban." These
programs are the news reader, news poster and control programs
respectively.  This system basically conforms to RFC1036 with some added
extensions for Amateur Radio use.  When a station posts a news item on his
KA9Q system, it will distribute a control message called "ihave" to his
neighbors.  The neighbors check if they already have this news and they
will reply "sendme" if they do not or "alhave" if they do.  After getting
"sendme" messages, the ihave station distributes the news to his neighbors.

One of the other extensions are the "addme" control message that has the
following format:

addme newsgroups hostname

(for example, addme ampr jk1rjq.ampr.jp)

If the system receives this message, it automatically adds his/her entry to
a news/lib/sys file to start sending/receiving news messages after
receiving it.  Because there are so many hams who do not want to maintain
the system, but want to run the news system, maintaining the sys file
automatically is essential.

Yomi is not released yet.  It will be programmed by Toshihiko Oka, JF3KOA,
and will have the same interface as "rn." (At this time, "tyu" [the "Tiny
Yomi Utility," developed by Kazuhide Watababe, JE7LQS] is used instead of
yomi.)

Kaki was programmed by Shigeki Matsushima, JK1RJQ.  It is used for posting
news and sending some control messages like addme, sendsys and version to
the other hosts.  This program invokes an editor to write messages.

Soroban was programmed by Dai Yokota, JK1LOT, and is the main program of
this terakoya system.  It works as the interface to the other hosts
communicating with the other hosts using mail.  The address to the soroban
is fixed at "rnews@hostname." All news and control messages are
sent/received to this address on a closed host which has sent the "addme"
control message.  If news is received at this address, it will be stored in
the appropriate directory according to "Newsgroups:" header field.

Copies of this system, including source code, are available, but, at this
time, the manuals are in Japanese only.  English manuals will be prepared
as soon as possible.  (The source code will be sent to Bdale Garbee, N3EUA,
for now.)

The Oimo Club was organized by Shigeki Matsushima, JK1RJQ, and Dai Yokota,
JK1LOT, in 1989 for the enjoyment of programming and has developed programs
for Amateur Radio.  One of them is "oimo," which is the mailer for the KA9Q
TCP/IP software package user and is upwardly compatible with BM (Bdale's
Mailer).  It can handle the Kanji code, the so called Chinese characters,
and has many more features.

If you want to know more about terakoya system and/or oimo mailer, send an
SASE to:

     Shigeki Matsushima
     1-4-25 Sakurazutsumi
     Musashino, Tokyo 180
     Japan

Or you can contact:

     PRUG (Packet Radio User's Group)
     PO Box 66
     Tamagawa Post Office
     Setagaya, Tokyo 158
     Japan

from Shigeki Matsushima, JK1RJQ via CompuServe's HamNet

               QSL MANAGER SERVER ON THE AIR

For those of you on packet radio who are also interested in DXing, a
"server" is on-line at the W1NY PBBS.  This server keeps a database of
stations, their QSL managers and information requests.  You can submit a
request to the server for a particular station's QSL manager.  If the
server has the information, you will get the information back right away.
If the server does not have the information you request, it will store your
request and send you a message when the information becomes available.  You
can also use the server to find out what QSL routes are being requested and
you may update the database.


To get help on the server, send a message to QSLMGR @ W1NY.  The subject of
your message will be ignored by the server.  Put the word help as the only
word in the body of your message.  If you would like to see a few samples
of input to the server, send a message to the server with the word sample
as the only word in the body of the message.

If you have any questions about the server, please contact Bob Lafleur,
NQ1C @ W1NY.

from Bob Lafleur, NQ1C @ W1NY via CompuServe's HamNet

Gateway: The ARRL Packet Radio Newsletter                       Part 3 of 3

Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, Editor   -   Volume 5, Number 20   -    June 23, 1989

             TCP/IP QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED

Recently, an increasing number of people have been asking questions about
the various non-PC versions of the KA9Q TCP/IP code.  Unfortunately, KA9Q
is unable to answer them.  The only version of the code he deals with
directly (and can answer questions about) is the new "NOS" version in
Turbo-C for the PC running MS-DOS.  This code is currently in experimental
field test.

Several others have contributed greatly to the amateur TCP/IP effort by
porting the KA9Q code to other environments.  In many situations they have
contributed major enhancements of their own.  Since there are not enough
hours in the day to keep up with all that is going on, KA9Q cannot answer
questions that are specific to those versions, however, the following
people have agreed to act as contacts for these other versions of TCP/IP.
Please contact them directly if you have any questions.

"pre-NOS" PC:       Bdale Garbee, N3EUA
System V/Xenix:     Bob Hoffman, N3CVL
Apple Macintosh:    Doug Thom, N6OYU

from Phil Karn, KA9Q via CompuServe's HamNet

          BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE EQUIPMENT DONATIONS

Kantronics, Inc and RF Concepts have donated units to the 1989 National Boy
Scout Jamboree to show their support for Scouting's role in the growth of
Amateur Radio.  The 1989 Jamboree will be attended by approximately 34,000
scouts and leaders.  (See August 1989 QST for further information.)

        IARU REGION 1 BAND PLAN FOR HF PACKET RADIO

According to the HF band plan for IARU Region 1 (Africa, Europe, the Middle
East, Mongolia and the USSR), the following subbands are recommended for
packet radio:

      3.590-3.600  MHz
     14.089-14.100 MHz
     21.100-21.120 MHz
     28.120-28.150 MHz
     29.200-29.300 MHz

from cq-DL

          AMATEUR RADIO SATELLITE LAUNCH SCHEDULE

Recently, Tom Clark, W3IWI, talked with Eduardo Dias, who is the manager of
a satellite tracking station in Santiago, Chile (this was one of the
tracking stations which supported the launch of the Japanese H-1 rocket
that carried FO-12).  Eduardo mentioned that the next Japanese launch of a
H-1 rocket has been set for January 23, 1990 and he said that he had been
contacted by the JARL and asked if he could provide Amateur Radio support
since JAS-2 will also fly on this mission.  JAS-2 will be the "follow-on"
to FO-12.

A quick "run-down" of all known Amateur Radio satellite launches scheduled
for next several months follows.

    Satellite           Launch Date

    RS-12/13             06/??/89
    PACSAT               11/09/89
    LUSAT                11/09/89
    DOVE                 11/09/89
    UoSAT D              11/09/89
    UoSAT E              11/09/89
    JAS-2                01/23/90

from AMSAT News Service

                  GATEWAY SPARED

The next issue of Gateway will be published three weeks hence instead of
the usual two weeks hence.  This three-week break between issues occurs
twice a year because Gateway is published only 25 times-per- year, which,
on a biweekly publication schedule, leaves two weeks to spare.  So, one
week is spared now and the other week during the Christmas holidays.

               GATEWAY CONTRIBUTIONS

Submissions for publication in Gateway are welcome.  You may submit
material via the US mail to:

    Gateway
    Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU
    75 Kreger Drive
    Wolcott, CT 06716-2702

or electronically, via CompuServe to user ID 70645,247.  Via telephone,
your editor can be reached on evenings and weekends at 203- 879-1348 and he
can switch a modem on line to receive text at 300, 1200 or 2400 bit/s.
(Personal messages may be sent to your Gateway editor via packet radio to:
WA1LOU @ W1AW.)

The deadline for each issue of Gateway is the Saturday preceding the issue
date (which is typically a Friday).

REPRODUCTION OF GATEWAY MATERIAL

Material may be excerpted from Gateway without prior permission, provided
that the original contributor is credited and Gateway is identified as the
source.

--
Gary W. Sanders (gws@n8emr or ...!osu-cis!n8emr!gws), 72277,1325
N8EMR @ W8CQK (ip addr) 44.70.0.1 [Ohio AMPR address coordinator]
HAM/SWL/SCANNER BBS (1200/2400/PEP) 614-457-4227

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 15:08:25 GMT
From: swituc![e-mail]  (Admin)
Subject: White Pages

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dick Mead) writes:
>
>
>       How about including the latitude and longitude of the site and
>       noting if it is IP/Netrom/digi/whatever and any alias, and its
>       frequency of operation. Then please post the white pages to the net.
>       73's
>       Dick WB6NGC

My intent is to compile a directory of BBS users.  If someone else wants
to compile a listing of BBSs, I will share whatever information I have
with them.

73, Pat KN7B

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #177
*****************************************
14-Jul-89 20:26:49-MDT,10878;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 89 20:00:23 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #178
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Fri, 14 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
        8th Networking Conference Registration
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail (2 msgs)
     Need info on ft727 - mfj 1278 connection for packed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 23:01:58 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: 8th Networking Conference Registration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE              For more information contact:
                   Lori Weinberg
                   American Radio Relay League
                   Tel: [phone]
July 5, 1989                       FAX: [phone]

         8th Annual ARRL Computer Networking Conference


     The 8th ARRL Computer Networking Conference will be held in Colorado
Springs, Colorado, at the Air Force Academy in the Fairchild Hall conference
area on Saturday, October 7th.  This year's hosts are: Tucson Amateur Packet
Radio (TAPR), Academy Amateur Radio Club, USAFA Cadet Radio Club, Rocky
Mountain Packet Radio Association (RMPRA) and the American Radio Relay League
(ARRL).  If you plan on presenting a paper, please contact Lori Weinberg for
an author's package.  Deadline for receipt of camera-ready papers is August
28, 1989.

     Conference headquarters will be the new Colorado Springs Marriott.
Special conference rates are: Single room, $45; extra person in room, $13.
Reservations should be made by September 6, 1989.  After this date there is no
assurance that space or the special rate will be available.  When calling for
reservations, call the Marriott direct at 719-260-1800 (do not use the
Marriott 800 number).  In order to get the special rate, be sure to identify
yourself as a member of the "ARRL Networking Conference."

     Other nearby motels:
                    1 person    2 persons
     Comfort Inn    719-598-6700       $40         $45
     Sheraton Inn   719-598-5770        75          85
     Drury Inn      719-598-2500        42          48

     Colorado Springs Municipal Airport is approximately ten (10) miles from
the Marriott.  It is served by six national carriers with over 100 flights
daily from six major gateway cities: Chicago, St. Louis, Dallas/Ft. Worth,
Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Denver.  Airport transportation to and from the
airport will be provided by the Marriott.  Arrival and departure times should
be coordinated with the hotel transportation staff.

     For those arriving before 3 PM on Friday, October 6, a conducted tour of
the Air Force Academy has been planned.  The assembly point for this tour will
be announced in a later bulletin and will be posted at the hotel registration
desk.  Private transportation will be used.  If you need a ride, let your
needs be known when sending in your registration fee.

     On Saturday evening (6:30-10:00), there will be an opportunity to get
acquainted at a special (and informal) attitude adjustment session at the
Marriott.  A full-size Taco buffet ($2 per pass through the buffet) and cash
bar will be available.

     For those planning extra time in the area, the Pikes Peak region offers
a wide range of attractions.  You can take the world's highest cog railway to
the top of Pikes Peak or drive the scenic Pikes Peak highway.  You'll be
amazed at what an HT can do from 14,110 feet.  Also, nearby are Garden of the
Gods, Seven falls, the old mining towns of Cripple Creek and Victor, the Royal
Gorge (home of the world's highest suspension bridge), and the US Olympic
Training Center.

     Registration for the conference is $20.00.  This fee includes the
conference, one bound copy of the 8th Networking Conference proceedings,
refreshments throughout the day, lunch at the AFA Officers Club
(transportation will be provided) and use of the Marriott hospitality room.
There will be no charge for the conducted tour of the Air Force Academy.
Extra copies of the conference proceedings will be available at $12.00 each.

     Upon receipt of your registration fee, you will be mailed a preprinted
Marriott reservation form and other materials of interest.  Please indicate if
you would like to be included in the Air Force Academy conducted tour.  Send
your $20 registration fee (make checks payable to Andy Freeborn), along with
your name, call, address and telephone number to:

           Andy Freeborn, N0CCZ, President TAPR
           5222 Borrego Drive
           Colorado Springs, CO  80918
           Telephone: [phone]



------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 22:00:07 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

>- Filter scripts for the "no-no" words could kill the most obvious offensive
>  stuff, but would be hard to determine commercial intent, etc.  But, I
>  could see a script that kicks off and if it finds offensive materials,
>  turns the message around and back to the sender with an error message
>  telling them what they did wrong.

Please *don't* do this.  If you kick the mail back to the sender, and the
sender happens to be a mailing list redistribution point, then you're going
to royally torque a lot of folks... particularly the nice people who help to
distribute your mail and bulletins...

> If I don't, I'm sure the sysop would be responsible for my comm.

Current FCC rulings hold the amateur radio station which injects a message
into the amateur radio packet network responsible for the content of traffic
being passed.  In other words, if you send mail through a gateway, the gateway
operator's neck is on the line, not yours.

Bdale

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 89 17:56:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (5415) writes:

   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Johnathan Vail) writes:
   >In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Just another hired gun (n2hkd)) writes:
   >
   >   the intelligent screening of what comes from Usent and goes over the air.
   >       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >   There are some things that are no nos, like language and businesss stuff.
   >   Then again if the mail sender has a callsign in it, then I won't screen
   >   it. If it doesn't orginate from a HAM then I would have to garauntee it's
   >   "legality" for Transmission. ANy thoughts about this would be appreciated.

   All of this is assuming that the sender knows radio laws and is an operator.

Having a callsign field assumes exactly that, that the person sending
it is a ham and is directing it for retransmission over amateur radio.

   But none of these ideas really provide me, the non-ham, with a way to get
   mail to my packet friends.  Is/would sending a piece of mail via a gateway
   into a packet bbs tantamount to broadcast?  Do I need a license?  If I don't,
   I'm sure the sysop would be responsible for my comm.

I think the laws that govern things like this are:

 --- No business transmission

 --- "Profane" language

 --- Communication between hams

Randomly feeding usenet over packet can break the first and second
rules above.  Sending mail between non-hams could violate the third.

   ...doesn't seem like such a simple idea anymore... Hmm... maybe a CB radio
   gateway....  :-)

I guess the smiley means that you are aware that digital modes are not
legal for CB (I hope I'm not making this up...) I'll put in my $.02
pitch and encourage you to go for a ticket.  The theory shouldn't be
bad for someone technically inclined and is useful.  The code, even if
you never actaully use it directly can be useful to know and 5WPM is
very easy to learn.

"Did you ever walk into a room and forget why you walked in?  I think
that's how dogs spend their lives." -- Sue Murphy
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra![e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----
--

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 19:56:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Carl Heinzl)
Subject: Need info on ft727 - mfj 1278 connection for packed

Has anyone made the combination of this tnc/ht work on packet.
I'm using an IBM PC and have the mfj1284 starter kit which
includes PTP and MT - both comm programs.  I can talk to the
tnc from the computer, but want to know ahead of time if I
need to make up any kind of special circuit like this kind
that was mentioned in this artice by Jim Price K6ZH back
in Sept 87.  Thanks very much.

-Carl WA3UEN-

**********
First a thanks to the rec.ham-radio folks who responded to my
request for info on the FT727.  Two bands for a little more than
the price of one seemed like a good deal, and I bought one last
week.

Now, I'd like to use the thing on packet.  A while back some
kindly soul here on the net posted an RC coupling circuit that
would allow use of Icom HTs (e.g.  IC-2AT) on packet.  The
circuit coupled the mic line from the TNC (thru a .01 capacitor)
with the PTT line (thru a 22K resistor) which then plugged into
the HT's mic jack as a combined signal.  This odd arrangement is
necessitated by Icom (and Yaesu) not bringing a PTT line out to a
connector.

Now, the AEA PK-232 booklet says the SAME circuit will also allow
the FT727 to work on packet.  But mine doesn't.  I can receive
packets fine, but the HT won't key in response to the TNC's PTT
signal.  Do I need to diddle the value of the resistor?  Is there
some fundamental difference the in mic keying circuits that AEA
is unaware of?

Bottom line: has anyone got an FT727 working on packet, and if so
how'd you do it?  I have an MFJ-1270 TNC, by the way, whose
documentation suggests a transformer coupler.
********************

-Carl WA3UEN-
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Carl G. Heinzl         Internet: [e-mail]
 Apollo Computer, Inc.  UUCP:     {mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver}!apollo!heinzl_c
 Chelmsford, MA 01824   Phone:    [phone] x6701

--

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #178
*****************************************
17-Jul-89 05:17:16-MDT,15072;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 89 05:00:23 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #179
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Mon, 17 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
        8th Networking Conference Registration
       diffs for KA9Q to use NS16550 UART in fifo mode
              DRSI driver module for NET
              Need Info - Host to packet
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 89 15:06:26 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: 8th Networking Conference Registration

The following was mailed, along with the ARRL announcement, to about
500 packeteers in Colorado and adjacent states.  I'm posting it here because
I think the Sunday stuff may be of interest to other attendees as well...

73 - Bdale, N3EUA


                   July 1989


Fellow Packeteer,

The enclosed flyer announces the ARRL 8th Computer Networking Conference to be
held in Colorado Springs.  From the title of the conference you may conclude
that it will be of little interest to you....don't believe it, the title is
somewhat misleading.  These conferences deal with PACKET RADIO.

The first seven conferences were held on the west coast or in the east.  Not
this year though.  Colorado Springs is reasonably convenient to get to for all
receiving this letter (the mailing list was provided by RMPRA).

The Saturday session at the Academy will include prominent amateurs who are
doing packet radio development work at the leading edge of technology.
They'll be speaking about their current efforts in the areas of packet
satellites (PACSAT), networking (TCP/IP, TexNet, ROSE), the new version of
AX.25, digital signal processing (DSP), high speed packet (10MB/sec), new
packet hardware and packet software developments and many other fascinating
development efforts now in progress.

There will be TWO concurrent sessions at the Marriott on Sunday.  The ARRL
Digital Committee will be in open session and amateurs are welcome to observe.
At the same time, the Rocky Mountain Packet Radio Association will be hosting
their annual Packetfest in a separate meeting room.

The RMPRA Packetfest will feature many of the prominent amateurs in attendance
for the 8th Networking Conference and the Digital Committee meeting.  The
Sunday session will be of the tutorial/discussion/Q&A type of presentation.

The Saturday night Taco social session at the Marriott will be a great
opportunity to eyeball with some of the folks that you have been packeting
with and to ragchew with some of the Saturday and Sunday Speakers.

Please pass this information on to your local club newsletter editors.  If you
can take a few minutes at your next club meeting to announce the above
information it will help to spread the word.  Thanks.

If you are interested in packet radio and what lies ahead in amateur digital
communications don't miss this opportunity.

73, and hope to see you there.

Andy Freeborn, N0CCZ
Conference Coordinator
President, Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 89 13:45:28 GMT
From: mcvax!tuvie!hpuviea![e-mail]  (Michael Haberler)
Subject: diffs for KA9Q to use NS16550 UART in fifo mode

Using the NS16550 serial chip instead of the standard 8250 cuts down
interrupts to about 7% due to on-chip buffering. Here are context diffs
for 8250.{c,h} of the 'nos test' release. Using the 16550 also should
leave some more latency for slow ethernet cards, so Ethernet/SLIP
routing should work better.

-michael
p.s: Query of the Day: Who can point me to a source/documentation for
Mike Chepponi's serial coprocessor card?

begin 666 diffs.Z
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MP<VJL<L_FV;/&&<<5Y\&"0)]7+='TG*KEB>I&K=TP (.!F&%E5Z2;,?6G)]
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.)P*A) *9#L*PW* #ON1!

end
--
Michael Haberler                [e-mail]
Hewlett-Packard Austria GmbH,   ...mcvax!tuvie!hpuviea!mah
Lieblgasse 1                                    ...hplabs!hpbbn!hpuviea!mah
A-1220 Vienna, Austria          Tel: (0043) (222) 2500 x412 (9-18 CET)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 89 14:17:33-0000
From: r p gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: DRSI driver module for NET

Hi,

  We should like to obtain the DRSI driver module for NET, so that we can
  compile it in to ver 8904.1.

  Any offers??

  Ray Gordon, G1XRN           E-Mail: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 89 01:19:59 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]  (Richard WD5B Duncan)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet

You will have to excuse the bare bones message.  First time trying to use
Portal.  I am running a packet system on my xenix machine (2 HF ports and
1 vhf port).  It is RLI/MBL compabible.  I am testing the routines now and
can tranfer messages via uucp mail to other systems running my software,
which is two others in the local area now.  The interfacing into Usenet, or
similiar network, would be easy since my software (presently termed 'uNET')
generates the messages and mails them via the normal mail command so
standard Unix mail functions are used from that point on.

I have not tackled the input from third party sources as of yet since all
my testing will be between amateur systems.  But, checking of third party
mail could be easily done if incoming mail is manually transfered to the
bbs system files rather than using the automatic feature.

Addressing of the mail is still handled through normal uucp channels
with the destination callsign being the key in a lookup file.

------------------------------

Date: (null)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

> ( Johnathan Vail <tegra![e-mail]> ) ...
> Has the following been suggested:  add a new field to the mail or news
> message called "Callsign:" or maybe "Amateur Call:" that would identify
> the message came from a ham and is suitable...

I haven't seen this before, but it isn't going to be a very useful solution.

First, do you really want to pass any message that some bozo has tacked a
"Callsign:" header onto?  I put one onto this message for the heck of it.  My
ability to do so had absolutely nothing to do with my having a valid license.
There is *no* guarantee that only amateurs will do so, and even if this were
true -- do you really trust all amateurs to post proper material?  I don't.

Second, you need to screen material in *both* directions!  Almost any packet
setup can send any message with any callsign.  Wanna keep your gateway...??

Last and least, since it isn't an "official" header type, it'll get stripped
in some gateways and mailers.  Sure it's a pain, but some folks object to all
of those "Zippy-saying-of-the-day:" and "Moon-phase:" headers ;-).

To my mind, the only full solution would be a parallel usenet of amateur-only
lists and/or lists fully moderated on the amateur side.  This would require
lots and *lots* of volunteers - I have heard rumors that the full Usenet load
is currently about a megabyte a day!  (Enlightenment is expected)

Anyone have a good, free, PC based newsreader and NNTP-over-KA9Q package yet?

Best of luck,              -john KA4JSI

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John Lundin, Jr.       KA4JSI ( @ WA4ONG )       Amateur packet
KA4JSI                 [e-mail]       Vanilla Bitnet
211 E. Grace St.       [e-mail]    Internet (MX)
Richmond, VA  23219    [e-mail]      (soon, I hope)

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #179
*****************************************
21-Jul-89 15:25:28-MDT,7938;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 89 15:00:24 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #180
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Fri, 21 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
                (none)
          Need Info - Host to packet e-mail
             Need KISS for TNC-1
       The ROSE X.25 Packet Switch is Fully Operational
            wanted: kiss ONLY tnc
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 19:11:05 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: (none)

>  We should like to obtain the DRSI driver module for NET, so that we can
>  compile it in to ver 8904.1.

Contact DRSI... they will gladly send you a floppy with their latest driver and
NET ready to go!  They're nice people...

73 - Bdale, N3EUA

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 89 14:18:00 GMT
From: apollo!ulowell!tegra![e-mail]  (Johnathan Vail)
Subject: Need Info - Host to packet e-mail

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

   > ( Johnathan Vail <tegra![e-mail]> ) ...
   > Has the following been suggested:  add a new field to the mail or news
   > message called "Callsign:" or maybe "Amateur Call:" that would identify
   > the message came from a ham and is suitable...

   I haven't seen this before, but it isn't going to be a very useful solution.

   First, do you really want to pass any message that some bozo has tacked a
   "Callsign:" header onto?  I put one onto this message for the heck of it.  My
   ability to do so had absolutely nothing to do with my having a valid license.
   There is *no* guarantee that only amateurs will do so, and even if this were
   true -- do you really trust all amateurs to post proper material?  I don't.

I would make the analogy to a normal ham repeater.  The ability to
push a PTT has nothing to do with a license either.  The header field
is only used when appropriate.  Forgery would be the same as
bootlegging on a repeater now.  It happens, is dealt with and unless
it becomes a serious problem I don't see it as a reson not to
implement this or a similar scheme.

It has a chance of working, is simple, is entirely voluntary and I
don't see any other way to automate things.  Does anyone see any real
legal *reasons* against this?  I have already thought of lots of "what
if"s like this.

"Don't Ever Antagonize the Horn"
 _____
|     | Johnathan Vail | tegra![e-mail]
|Tegra| [phone] | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625-
 -----

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 89 14:12:09 GMT
From: hpl-opus!hpnmdla!hpmwtd![e-mail]  ( Dave McQuate)
Subject: Need KISS for TNC-1

Thanks,
     I have a copy now,
Dave

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 89 07:40:52 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!ka2qhd![e-mail]  (Thomas A Moulton RATS Clifton NJ)
Subject: The ROSE X.25 Packet Switch is Fully Operational

Greetings!
It has been a while since I have made noise here...

I would like to let you *all* know that the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch is
now operational. It is VERY stable and is ready to be deployed to it's
fullest. If there is any interest I would be happy to send out some of
my standard "propaganda" messages, it might be easier to get abused, oops
I mean get questions...

It is currently in use in about 15 states and over a dozen countries.
Yes it DOES work!

Here is a breif overview of the features...

[well maybe no so brief...]
What is the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch?

The ROSE Switch is the first Amateur Packet Networking program that
uses the International Standard protocol for packet networks, CCITT X.25.

The program is meant to be installed in place of the EPROM found in a TNC-2
(or Clone) packet controller.  It is not meant for User Terminals, but for
Network Facilities such as a Digipeater, a NET/ROM, or TheNet EPROM.

ROSE X.25 Packet Switch offers the following features:

     *  Hop-by-Hop Acknowledgements between Switches - provides reliability
      and higher throughput.

     *  On-line Information - Information/Help bulletin.

     *  FCC and foreign PTT acceptable AX.25 Level 2 SOURCE and DESTINATION
      Identification - the call signs of both the station of
      origination and termination appear at each end of the connection.

     *  Proper Transmitter Licensee Identification - Switch always
      identifies its transmissions with its own call sign, not the call
      sign of ANY user. Call signs traverse the network without ANY changes.

     *  Backbone is Fully Transparent to Users - Can add or remove Switches
      in the backbone, change call signs, bands/frequencies without
      having to inform users or modify BBS forwarding files.

     *  True Implicit Addressing - Only need to know the address of the
      desired exit point of the network, not all the intermediate
      steps.

     *  Network Determined Routing - Network manager determines best path,
      eliminating need for broadcasting of routing information to other
      switches.

     *  Dynamic Route Selection - Network will automatically attempt
      alternative paths to remote switches, based on information that
      the Network Manager provided.

     *  Predetermined Network Paths - Network manager tells each switch
      which paths to use, will not attempt impossible links because
      another switch was heard during a band opening.

     *  Support for Emergency Operations - A switch can be added to the
      network to provide service from the afflicted area without
      modifications to the existing network.

     *  Security System for Remote Control - authentication of user who
      requests to view or modify configuration.

     *  Common Hardware base among vendors - The ROSE X.25 Packet Switch
      runs on ANY TNC-2 compatible TNC, (TAPR TNC-2, AEA PK-80, MFJ
      1270, Pac-Comm TNC-200 Tiny 2, Micro-Power,  as well as the Pac-
      Comm DUAL Port DR-200)

     *  Full Radio Support on Asynchronous Port - The Asynchronous port of
      a TNC can be attached to a 202, or any other modem with an RS-232
      interface and Radio, providing a dual port system.  The second
      port is AX.25 using the Asynchronous Framing Technique (AFT) that
      was proposed by Toby Nixon of Hayes, which is pending CCITT
      adoption as the accepted method for sending X.25 over
      asynchronous links.

     *  Multi-Synchronous Ports using TNC's - Since the Asynchronous port
      has full radio support it also can support one or more switches
      via a special (commonly available) RS-232 cable.

     *  Complete Remote Configuration - All configuration is done over the
      air, many parameters can also be burned into the EPROM.

Thomas A. Moulton, W2VY
[phone]
W2VY@KD6TH
73!
--
Life is too short to be mad about things.
Thomas A. Moulton, W2VY          Packet: w2vy@kd6th  Voice: 145.190 (r)
[phone]                   uucp: ...!ihnp4!hotps!ka2qhd!w2vy

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 89 05:31:23 GMT
From: engcon![e-mail]  (TCTWILLEY)
Subject: wanted: kiss ONLY tnc

I would like info on a kiss only tnc (make/buy).
Any info would be appreciated.
    thanks,
    Carl Twilley wb5mnd

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #180
*****************************************
26-Jul-89 05:13:20-MDT,9865;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 89 05:00:04 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #181
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Wed, 26 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
              DIGICOM>64 on a PC
              Fidograms (2 msgs)
               Interested in ham radio
           Questions from a rank beginner (2 msgs)
                 Subscribing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:42:36 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Andrew Payne)
Subject: DIGICOM>64 on a PC

I was wondering if anyone had attempted something similar to the DIGICOM>64
(where most of the work sending and receiving packets is done in software
instead of with a dedicated chip like a Zilog SCC) on an IBM PC?

I am working on such a system, and I was wondering if anyone had already
done such a thing...  (don't really want to re-invent the wheel).

Comments appreciated,


--
=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
              INTERNET:  [e-mail]
PHONE: [phone]      USMAIL:  5428 Cls '26-UHall 5   Ithaca, NY  14853

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 03:19:31 GMT
From: attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef![e-mail]  (Chris Graham)
Subject: Fidograms

  A few days ago, I came across a neglected article that described a
service called "fidograms".  According to the article, telegrams for
non-profit use can be sent to one of two FidoNet sites in North America
and they will be delivered, free of charge, to anyone in North America and
some other countries by telephone.  The article further says that HAM
radio operators participate in this service to help them practice their
emergency response measures.

  Since this article is quite old, I sent some mail to the suggested
sites asking if they are still in that business but I have yet to receive
any reply.  Does anyone know if this service is still offered and what
sites such telegrams should be mailed to?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:14:30 GMT
From: swituc![e-mail]  (Pat Berry)
Subject: Fidograms

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris Graham) writes:
>
>   A few days ago, I came across a neglected article that described a
> service called "fidograms".  According to the article, telegrams for
> non-profit use can be sent to one of two FidoNet sites in North America
> and they will be delivered, free of charge, to anyone in North America and
> some other countries by telephone.  The article further says that HAM
> radio operators participate in this service to help them practice their
> emergency response measures.
>
>   Since this article is quite old, I sent some mail to the suggested
> sites asking if they are still in that business but I have yet to receive
> any reply.  Does anyone know if this service is still offered and what
> sites such telegrams should be mailed to?

I am a member of the National Traffic System and routinely handle such
messages.  There is a national network of amateur radio operators that
meet many times per day at set times and on set frequencies to handle
third party messages (traffic).

The system starts out at the local level, with a "net" covering a city or
small geographic area.  One person collects any messages leaving this local
area and takes them to the state or section net and one person goes to that
net to get any traffic coming into the local net from the section net.

From the section net, the same thing occurs between the section net and a
regional net.  Typical of the coverage of a regional net is Twelfth Region
Net (TWN) which covers Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

From the region net the same thing is repeated to and from the area net.
These nets cover roughly the Eastern, Central and Pacific thirds of the
US and Canada.  There is a group of experienced hams known as the
Trans Continental Corps (TCC) that is responsible for handling all of the
traffic flowing between the area nets.  This handling is all done outside
of the net structure but on assigned schedules (skeds).

There are only a couple of restrictions on the third party traffic -
1.   NO commercial or business communications of any sort.  If you think
     the autopatch owners are fussy about what they handle, most NTS ops
     take this requirement even more seriously since the rules are very
     explicit about third party traffic and business comm.

2.   Maximum size per radiogram should be held to 25 or 30 words in the
     body of the message (not counting address or signature).  If needed
     send several messages to the same person but keep each short.

3.   Include a telephone number of the addressee.  I, for one, will not
     mail a message I get with no phone number.  I have handled up to
     999 messages in one month and I can not afford to do someone elses
     mailing.

I will be happy to put messages for anyone into the NTS if you E-Mail
them to me.  They make neat ways of wishing someone happy birthday!

Pat Berry KN7B
pmb@arizona!swituc.UUCP
uunet!arizona!swituc!pmb

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 89 20:55:19 GMT
From: att!chinet![e-mail]  (Henry C. Schmitt)
Subject: Interested in ham radio

I'm interested in getting into ham radio, particularly packet radio,
and would like some information.

First:  what level of liscense do I need for packet radio?  Will
novice do or do I need more?

Second:  Is there a ham club here in Chicago (preferably the N.W.
suburbs) than can give me some help?

Third:  I'm a Zenith employee and so I can get Heathkit products at a
discount.  What do folks recommend for portable packet radio?

Fourth:  I'm a Macintosh owner.  What good software is there for
packet radio or for ham in general?

Thanx so much for your help!  Send me mail if you don't want to
clutter up the newsgroup.


--
  H3nry C. Schmitt     | CompuServe: 72275,1456  (Rarely)
               | GEnie: H.Schmitt  (Occasionally)
 Royal Inn of Yoruba   | UUCP: [e-mail]  (Best Bet)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 89 07:40:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Questions from a rank beginner

I am now planning on purchasing a TNC, thus entering the world of packet
radio, but I have some questions about packet and its capabilities. I have
read WA2ISE's recent operating guide for beginners, but I am not even a
beginner yet. If any of you experienced packeteers would like to answer
these questions (here or via Email), I would be glad to summarize for the
benefit of fellow pre-beginners, the interested, and the curious.

1. Are there TNC kits? Schematics? Or some other CHEAP way to get started?
I already have computers and 2m equipment.

2. Can an HT be used?

Packet radio seems to me to be the ideal way to handle traffic, and
therefore, emergency traffic. It is fast (no spelling out names,
repetition, etc) not easily monitored by eavesdroppers with scanners, and
appears to have message direction as part of its very essence. So:

3. Is there much traffic being handled?

4. How extensively networked are packet stations? Can I send a message
cross-country via packet to my aunt Minnie?

5. What would happen if the information flow increased sharply, as would
happen in an emergency or disaster situation? I guess this could be tested
by having as many people as possible get and save up as many pieces of
traffic as they can for a week, then dump them all into the system on, say,
Field Day.

6. Besides 2m, what other bands are frequented by packeteers?

7. How well established is packet radio? That is, are there some
frequencies used for digipeaters, others for nodes, and still others for
internode links (if there is such a thing)?

Perhaps asking so many questions is a shameless abuse of this forum. If I
get enough replies telling me so, I hope at least one contains a reference
to a source of the information I am after.

Thanks in advance to anybody who helps.

de Lyle D. Gunderson N6KSZ
   [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 89 16:43:42 GMT
From: ulysses!nsscb![e-mail]  (Timothy J. Murphy)
Subject: Questions from a rank beginner

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>If any of you experienced packeteers would like to answer
>these questions (here or via Email), I would be glad to summarize for the
>benefit of fellow pre-beginners, the interested, and the curious.
>
>de Lyle D. Gunderson N6KSZ
>   [e-mail]

    Your pardon for me as well if this is overstepping bounds. I have
just begun immersing myself in different aspects of radio communication, but
packet radio unix (I am a computer junkie <sob>) is a subject that I'm
fascinated by the "most." Please, de Lyle, if any info comes your way, email
me, I'll owe you one... to the experts of the group, any info will be muchly
appreciated!




                            Thanks,

                            Tim Murphy

                    ...!ulysses!nsscb!moby!megadodo!tjm

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 89 13:44:38 EDT
From: xenicon![e-mail] (Jerry Sturge)
Subject: Subscribing


------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #181
*****************************************
29-Jul-89 05:13:45-MDT,9791;000000000000
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 05:00:23 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 #182
To: [e-mail]

PACKET-RADIO Digest         Sat, 29 Jul 89       Volume 89 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
            DRSI PC*PA - G8BPQ - RLI 10.10
             High speed packet questions
            KA9Q's TCP/IP Package on Xenix
           Overview of the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch
            TAPR Office Closed Temporarily
            Want comments on using IC-275
               Wanted ka9q Unix packet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jul 89 02:26 CDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: DRSI PC*PA - G8BPQ - RLI 10.10

Greetings everyone.

Yet again do I present a question concerning the use of the PC*PA, G8BPQ
Packet Switch software, and W0RLI 10.10 BBS software.

My problem is this:  it seems that when I try to run the MBINIT.EXE file
my computer locks up.   My AUTOEXEC file contains the commands to load
LM, SHARE, CHKDSK, and the BPQCODE (for the G8BPQ switch).  Once all of
this is loaded MBINIT locks up the system.  I have tried repeating this
procedure with and without TNCTSR-S in memory and no difference occurs.

My configuration lines in CONFIG.MB (for RLI) are as follows:

PORT L C
RECENT CONNECTS
R               600     600     3600    1000    0       23     100   5

PORT A NODE
145.01 Mhz Packet Switch
RIGMUD123       600     600      180      50    1       23      5     5

PORT B NODE
145.01 Mhz Packet Switch
RIGMUD23        600     600     180       50    1       23      5     5

PORT C NODE
145.01 Mhz Packet Switch
RIGMUD23        600     600     180       50    1       23      5     5


My configuration in G8BPQ is as follows:

TNCPORTLIST=1,2,3,4

PORTS:

145.01 Mhz 1200 Baud (DRSI)
DRSI,300H,2,1200,A,BBSOK   ; DRSI board, 300H I/O address, IRQ 2,
                 1200 baud, Channel A,  BBS_OK here
192,2,300,100,255,0,0,5000,1000,10,120
;QUALITY, WINDOW, TX DELAY (@ 10MS INCREMENTS), SLOTTIME, PERSIST, FULL DUP,
;SOFTDCD, FRACK, RESPTIME, RETRIES, PACLEN,  CWID = N5LKM



I am about to pull all of my hair out because I can't find the problem.
I am missing it and I hope someone out there can find it...  or I will
pull out all of my hair and it took 2 years to grow it back!

Any ideas, suggestions, observations, or comments are gladly welcomed.

Thank you for your time and interest.

73's de Kraig Kreymer
    N5LKM @ W5AC (Packet - Texas A&M University)
    JKK3283 @ TAMVENUS (Texas A&M University - BitNet)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 11:59:56 GMT
From: mcvax!kth!draken!tut!oulu!tolsun![e-mail]  (Ari Husa OH8NUP)
Subject: High speed packet questions

We are planning to put up a 56 kbps TCP/IP packet radio network. Now
we have now pretty much come to the point where we must make the
decision of ordering (and building) all the necessary equipment.

We do still have some questions, however:

Which is the best interface for IBM PC-compatible machines?  Should we
use the Pac-Comm PC-100 (is it supported by KA9Q NET software yet?),
or something else? Opinions, please!

As far as I recall, Mike Chepponis (K3MC) is working on a better
interface. I wonder when that would become available?  And when would
the software support it? Does anyone have any idea of this? We would
hate to pour a hundred dollars to a packet driver, just to find out
that 2 months later there would have been a much better one out!

Another point of interest would be the possibility to link the system
to other computers than IBM PC-line. Is it possible at all, apart from
the old, painfully slow TNC's?  We would like to try (at least)
Commodore Amiga, Apple Macintosh, Convergent MiniFrame running SysV,
Sun 2, maybe others... Last spring, somebody asked about the
connection to Sun workstations, any answers to that?

ANYONE who knows the answer to ANY of these questions, please reply to
this newsgroup, or directly by mail. The decisions will have to be
made within a month or so...

Thank You in advance, 73

    Luru

--

///     Ari 'Luru' Husa  OH8NUP          [e-mail]
o-o   .--. .-. .. -- ..- ...   .. -. - . .-.   .--. .- .-. . ...
 o           Ham Radio Operators Do It In High Frequency!

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 89 04:26:28 GMT
From: brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!ark!lrark![e-mail]  (Rick Mobley)
Subject: KA9Q's TCP/IP Package on Xenix

Has anyone successfully compiled Phil's TCP/IP package to run on a SCO Xenix
system? I continually get an error message of 'to many segments' on the final
compile and don't feel like fixing what someone else has already fixed.

---

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 03:19:58 GMT
From: att!tsdiag!ka2qhd![e-mail]  (Thomas A Moulton RATS Clifton NJ)
Subject: Overview of the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch

From the number of requests for additional information I have decided that
I should post the following overview of the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch.

Here is a brief overview of the ROSE X.25 Packet Switch

The ROSE X.25 Packet Switch is the most advanced network level package
for the TNC-2 (and Clones) with support for the PacComm DR-200 Dual port,
and soon 4 port operation.  The ROSE Switch also supports asynchronous
packet on the RS-232 port of most TNCs, which can either be used over the
air or tied back-to-back with other ROSE Switches.

The ROSE Switch is the only Amateur Networking package based upon the
International Standard protocols, as defined by CCITT and ISO.

The ROSE Switch fully conforms to FCC identification requirements, and does
not waste channel bandwidth with needless broadcasts or beacons and has
lower protocol overhead increasing actual data throughput.

The ROSE X.25 Packet Switch does not to have seperate ID Beacons, nor does
it need to go key down for hours (so it seems) Broadcasting network
routing information, the ROSE Switch does NOT speak unless spoken TO!

You do not have to guess what station a transmission came from, since the
call sign of the switch appears in every transmission.

You do not have to poke your way through the network, paging through obscure
node names to try to get to the town you want to reach, nor do you need
reams of network maps, your phone book will do.

For more information please send a message to Tom, W2VY@KD6TH or (see below)
or call me at [phone].

(I am most accessible via packet or phone... this one costs money (dialup))
73, Tom
--
Life is too short to be mad about things.
Thomas A. Moulton, W2VY          Packet: w2vy@kd6th  Voice: 145.190 (r)
[phone]                   uucp: rutgers!petsd!tsdiag!ka2qhd!w2vy

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 14:02:38 GMT
From: hpfcdc!hpldola!hp-lsd!col![e-mail]  (Bdale Garbee)
Subject: TAPR Office Closed Temporarily

From the packet forum on Compuserve...

#: 103861 S9/Packet Radio
    25-Jul-89  10:42:00
Sb: Cris at TAPR
Fm: ANDY FREEBORN  N0CCZ 73177,1317
To: All

Cris at TAPR had a baby girl!

Thirty minutes after arriving at the hospital yesterday afternoon Cristina
(Cris), our office manager, gave birth to a brand new baby girl. Mother and
baby are doing fine.

The baby came about two weeks earlier than expected. This disrupts our well
laid plans for transitioning the office functions to Heather Johnson, N7DZU.

The office will be temporarily closed for a short period. The recorder will
be on the telephone line to accept urgent messages. Expect the office
routine to return to normal about August 3rd.

Andy N0CCZ
for TAPR

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 89 06:14:12 GMT
From: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Want comments on using IC-275

I am interested in hearing comments from hams who have used an Icom IC-275
for packet radio.

1.  Was the setup/hookup very easy?

2.  Did it require funny connectors or wiring?

3.  Did the levels match up very well?

4.  How well did the IC-275 perform for packet?

Thanks.  73's from KA9WGN

--Phil howard--  <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 89 21:07:01 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent![e-mail]  (Brian Sheets)
Subject: Wanted ka9q Unix packet

I am looking for a packet BBS to run on a Tektronix 6250 workstation, running
Utek.

I think what I am looking for Is KA9Q's package, but I am unable to download
it from anywhere due to the fact that I can only use KERMIT.

What I need to know is file names of what to look for if I run it to
it on any other systems. Or if someone could mail it to me that would work
out real nice.

Brian Sheets KA7KDX         _  /|                   "I'll be back"
19730 SW Prospect Ln.       \`o_O'
Aloha, Or 97007               ( ) Aachk!        - Arnold Schwarzenegger,
503-591-7858                   U   Phft!         Any movie he's been in.
--
Brian Sheets KA7KDX         _  /|                   "I'll be back"
19730 SW Prospect Ln.       \`o_O'
Aloha, Or 97007               ( ) Aachk!        - Arnold Schwarzenegger,
503-591-7858                   U   Phft!         Any movie he's been in.

------------------------------

End of PACKET-RADIO Digest V89 Issue #182
*****************************************